County Government of Wajir v Salat & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld residents' right to challenge a poorly managed Wajir dumpsite but replaced its closure order with a 30-day clean-up deadline.
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 National Environment Tribunal (NET) had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute
- 2.Whether the Appellants before the Tribunal had locus standi to institute the Appeal before the Tribunal
- 3.Whether the Respondents had proved violation of rights to a clean and healthy environment
- 4.Whether the Tribunal order for the relocation of the dumpsite was justified
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the National Environment Tribunal
The Tribunal had jurisdiction; NEMA's failure to enforce its own Improvement Notice amounted to an appealable decision under Section 129(2) EMCA
Section 129(1) EMCA covers appeals against specified decisions; subsection (2) extends appeals to decisions of the Authority. NEMA issued an Improvement Notice and had a statutory duty to supervise and enforce compliance. Its unexplained inaction despite repeated correspondence was a refusal to exercise a mandate vested in it, which constituted a decision appealable to the Tribunal.
Locus standi of the Tribunal appellants
The residents had locus standi under the expanded standing regime in Section 3 and 129 EMCA and Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution
Environmental legislation and the Constitution deliberately expand standing to allow any person, group or association acting in public interest to raise environmental concerns without proving direct personal harm. The appellants were residents of the area where the dumpsite was located and alleged violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment; they were entitled to appeal to the Tribunal.
Violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment
The Tribunal was justified in finding that the County Government violated the right to a clean and healthy environment in its management of the dumpsite
The County filed no response or rebuttal evidence before the Tribunal. NEMA's issuance of the Improvement Notice established non-compliant management, and the EIA report indicated gross violation and health risks. The County's claims of compliance were only in submissions, which cannot amount to evidence.
Justifiability of the closure and relocation order
The relocation order was set aside as unrealistic, unreasonable and unenforceable; a structured compliance regime was substituted
Relocation required identification and acquisition of suitable land held in trust under Articles 62(2) and 63(3), National Land Commission approval, county planning and public participation, budgeting, infrastructure development and NEMA licensing. The Tribunal failed to consider these factors. A structural interdict enforcing the Improvement Notice was the appropriate remedy under Article 23(3).
Legal principles established
#- NEMA's failure to enforce an Improvement Notice it issued constitutes a decision appealable to the Tribunal under Section 129(2) EMCA
- Locus standi in environmental matters is expanded by Section 3 and 129 EMCA read with Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution; no proof of direct personal harm is required
- Submissions do not constitute evidence and cannot be relied upon as evidence
- A court redressing violation of a fundamental right may issue structural interdicts/structured edicts under Article 23(3) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed; orders of the Tribunal issued on 26th April 2024 set aside
- 2.The Appellant, County Government of Wajir, ordered to fully comply with the Improvement Notice of Wajir Disposal Site dated 7th June 2019 within 30 days from the date of the Judgment
- 3.NEMA directed to inspect the facility after 30 days from the date of the Judgment and file a report in Court detailing the status of the Waste Disposal Site and level of compliance on or before 20th January 2026
- 4.Matter to be mentioned in Court on 29th January 2026 to confirm compliance and for further orders/directions
- 5.Costs before the Tribunal and of the Appeal to be borne by the parties with each party bearing their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- National Environmental Tribunal
- Tribunal Appeal No. 19 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 129 of the Environment Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA); appeal from the National Environmental Tribunal to the Environment and Land Court
Relief refused
#Sustention of the Tribunal's orders for closure and relocation of the Wajir waste disposal site
The order was unrealistic, unreasonable and incapable of being performed because the County had no land of its own, relocation required lengthy procedures, NLC approval, funding and licensing which the Tribunal failed to consider
Costs
The Costs before the Tribunal and of the Appeal shall be borne by the parties with each party bearing their own costs.
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.
It is my determination therefore that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal filed before them by the Respondents.
it is trite that submissions do not constitute evidence and cannot be relied upon as evidence.
The order in the circumstances was unrealistic, unreasonable and incapable of being performed.
The Tribunal in my view ought to have considered issuing a structured edict where it reserved supervision to monitor and ensure compliance with the Improvement Notice issued by NEMA to the Appellant.
I allow the Appeal, set aside the orders of the Tribunal issued on 26th April 2024 and in place thereof issue the following orders
The Costs before the Tribunal and of the Appeal shall be borne by the parties with each party bearing their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment variously refers to the NEMA notice as an 'Improvement Notice', 'Restoration Order' and 'Notice of Improvement' issued on the same date, and inconsistently numbers the parties (the 1st Respondent is described as one of the two Appellants before the Tribunal, while NEMA is called both 1st and 3rd Respondent)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Wajir v Salat & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Tribunal Appeal No. 19 of 2019 (appeal to ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8104/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.