REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

AT NAKURU

PETITION NO 50 OF 2012

IN  THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22 (1),  (2(,  (3),  (4));  23 (1),  3(a) and  (b),   42, 

69 (f) and (g) 70, 258  and  162(2)(b) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF  KENYA  2010

AND

IN THE  MATTER OF  SECTION 19  OF THE SIXTH  SCHEDULE (TRANSITIONAL

AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF  KENYA  2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 42 OF  THE CONSTITUTION OF  KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 13 OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT ACT 2011

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 3 & 111 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION ACT 1999

BETWEEN

AFRICAN CENTRE FOR RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE (ACRAG).............1ST PETITIONER

JOHN MUCHINA.............................................................................................2ND PETITIONER

JOHN MUCHIRI.............................................................................................3RD PETITIONER

ELIZABETH WANJIKU...................................................................................4TH PETITIONER

VERSUS

NAIVASHA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL..................................................................... RESPONDENT

RULING

1.  By a Petition dated 31st October, 2012 the Petitioners moved the court seeking;

(i) A declaration that the respondent has violated their rights under Article 42 of the Constitution to a clean and healthy environment;

(ii) A mandatory injunction to compel the respondents  to relocate the dumpsite on Naivasha/Maraigushu Block  11/4  (KARAI)  to another place and to restore the dumpsite;

(iii) A prohibitory injunction to restrain the Respondents or their agents and/or servants from dumping on  the  suit property;

{iv) An environmental restoration order

(v) Any other relief that the court may grant

(vi) Costs of the petition.

2.   This petition  being a matter of public interest  and wishing to  bring on  board as many people as possible who felt aggrieved by  the  dumping of refuse at Naivasha/ Maraigushu Block 11/4 (Karai)  (hereinafter referred to  as the  suit property) the Petitioners filed  this application, on 23rd July, 2013 seeking that  notice of  institution of  this Petition be  published in  a daily  newspaper of wide  national circulation so  that any   interested  party could apply to  be enjoined in the  Petition.

3.  The   application was   opposed  vide   a  replying affidavit dated 2nd October, 2013 sworn by Isaac Felix Olwero, the Naivasha Sub-County Administrator. He  deponed that the application was incompetent in law and only  sought the sympathy of the  court and the public, that the  Petitioners had already filed  their Petition and could not seek the  help of other members of the  public to punish the  Respondents; that  it would  be a grave miscarriage of justice  if the application was allowed.

4.  The   application was argued before me on 16th July, 2014. Counsel for the  applicant chose to fully  rely on  his application and  supporting  affidavit and  counsel  for   the respondent did  not  attend court on  the  hearing date.

5.  Before the promulgation of the   new constitution 2010, Public interest litigation had been a sticky affair in this country.  This is evidenced by  the rulings in the two  infamous cases, Maathai v Kenya  Times Media  Trust Ltd and Maathai  &  2  others v City  Council of  Nairobi  &  2 others  (collectively referred  to  as  the Wangari  Maathai cases)  where the   High   Court stated that  it  was only   the Attorney General that could institute cases on  behalf of the public.

6.   The drafters of the new   constitution appear to have contemplated such scenarios when they included Article 22(1) in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 by addressing the thorny issue of capacity.

Article 22 ( 1) provides;

"Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights  has  been  denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened."

This was further expanded in Article 22 (2) (c) which states that anyone may bring a constitutional petition in which allows public interest. It provides;

(2) In addition to a  person acting  in  their own interest,  court proceedings under clause  (1)  may   be instituted by-

 a)...........................................................

 b)............................................................

 (c) a person acting in  the public interest; or........."

Statute supports the position stated in the constitution.

7.  Statutes for instance the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999 equally addresses who can bring a suit in public interest. Section III (2) provides;

"For the avoidance of doubt, it shall not be necessary for  a plaintiff under this section to show that he has a  right or  interest in the property, environment or land alleged to have been or  likely to be  harmed"

8. Rule 3  (4)   and  5  (d)  of  the Constitution  of  Kenya (protection  of  rights  and  fundamental  freedom) practise and  procedure  Rules  2013  popularly  referred  as  the Mutunga rules grants courts power to make orders so  as to achieve the ends  of justice.

Rule 3 (4) provides:

"The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under these rules shall facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and  affordable  resolution of all cases."

Rule 5 (d) provides:

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear just...

(ii)  that  the   name  of  any   person· who   ought to have  been joined, or  whose presence before the court   may   be  necessary in  order   to  enable the court  adjudicate upon and settle the  matter, be added."

9. Although the  rules remain silent on  the  position of notice by  public advertising seeking to  enjoin intended  parties to the  Petition, there  is  ample  precedent  from  civil  cases decided  by  our courts  to   support  such  an  application, made pursuant to Order  1 Rule  8 (1) and  (3) of  the  Civil Procedure Rules 2010.

10.  In  exercise of its jurisdiction, the  courts in  considering whether or  not  to  allow  an application like  when the   one before  me,   should  be  guided  by  the   following principles stated  in  the  case of Rose Florence Wanjiru  v  Standard Chartered  Bank   of   Kenya   Limited &  2  others  [2014] eKLR,   where  Gikonyo J  held   that  the    advertisement should not  be allowed if;

"1)  it will  afford  the Plaintiff unfair  advantage;

2)  it will  become a  source  of  prejudice to the  Defendants; and

3)  a  smack on  the administration of  justice which may  in  a  way  border  the  wider concept of subjudice."

11.  Applying the  above Principles to  the  instant case, I do not   see   what  prejudice the  respondent  will  suffer  if  the instant  application  is   allowed.  Further   their   replying affidavit has  not    demonstrated  any    loss  that  will   be occasioned to the  defendant.

12.  For  the  above reason,  I allow  the  Petitioners' Notice  of Motion dated  on   23rd  July, 2013. Costs shall be  in   the cause.

Dated, signed  and  delivered  in open  court  at  Nakuru this 14th day  of November 2014.

L N  WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

N/A  for the  petitioners

N/A  for the  respondents

Emmanuel  Maelo: Court Assistant

L NWAITHAKA

JUDGE