James v County Government of Bungoma & another (Environment and Land Case Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7681 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of conservatory and mandatory injunctive orders to protect the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner established a prima facie case warranting conservatory and mandatory injunctive orders for protection of the right to a clean and healthy environment
Yes. The court found a prima facie case with an ongoing violation of rights because the asbestos waste from the demolition of Kanduyi Market was not shown to have been handled or disposed of in compliance with NEMA requirements, and the 1st Respondent did not attach the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment project report or evidence that the contractor was licensed for asbestos management.
Asbestos is classified as hazardous waste under the Fourth Schedule, item 136, of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Waste Management) Regulations, 2006. The 1st Respondent asserted the waste was buried 15 metres deep, but produced no EIA project report and no evidence that the 2nd Respondent was a NEMA-licensed asbestos contractor. Applying the precautionary principle in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration and the Ken Kasinga and Moffat Kamau authorities, the court drew the inference that the right to a clean and healthy environment was under threat, establishing a prima facie case with an ongoing violation.
Legal principles established
#- Where hazardous waste such as asbestos is being disposed of, disposal must be done under the guidance and directions of experts from the National Environmental Management Authority, and failure to attach the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment project report undermines a claim of lawful disposal
- Where procedures for the protection of the environment are not followed, an assumption may be drawn that the right to a clean and healthy environment is under threat
- The precautionary approach applies to environmental protection: lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation
Court orders
#- 1.A conservatory order prohibiting the Respondents, whether by themselves, employees or agents, from further exposing the public to hazardous asbestos waste or undertaking actions inconsistent with the Environmental Management statutes pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.A mandatory injunction compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally, to forthwith secure, collect, identify and remove all hazardous asbestos waste from its current location and arrange for its lawful transportation and disposal at a certified NEMA-approved facility, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 3.The costs of the application to be borne by the Respondents
- 4.The Petitioner/Applicant to take pragmatic steps to have the Petition heard and determined within six months from the date of the order
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 42 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Rules 4, 23 & 24 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013; the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 3, 58 and 89 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA)
Relief refused
#Conservatory order restraining the Respondents from disturbing, removing, transporting, disposing or interfering with the asbestos-containing waste pending hearing of the application
The court granted the substantive conservatory and mandatory injunction orders instead; the first order in the notice of motion was marked '(Spent)'
Costs
That the costs of this application to be borne by the Respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That a conservatory order do issue prohibiting the Respondents, whether by themselves, employees or agents from further exposing the public to hazardous asbestos waste or undertaking actions inconsistent with the Environmental Management statutes pending the hearing and determination of this Petition
That a mandatory injunction do issue compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally to forthwith secure, collect, identify and remove all hazardous asbestos waste from its current location and arrange for its lawful transportation and disposal at a certified NEMA-approved facility, pending the hearing and determination of this Petition.
I find that the Petitioner/Applicant has established a prima facie case against the Respondents as the available evidence indicates an ongoing violation of rights.
Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-efiective measures to prevent Environmental degradation.
The fourth schedule of the Regulations, item 136 categorises waste containing asbestos in the form of dust or fibres as hazardous.
Issues in the judgment
#The Replying affidavit contradicts itself on whether the asbestos waste was removed from the site: one paragraph states it was removed, others state it remained buried on site
The coram records the name as 'HON. E.C CHERONO ELC JUDGE' with no full given names
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James v County Government of Bungoma & another (Environment and Land Case Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7681 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7681/eng@2025-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.