High Court suspends relocation of Kachok dumpsite

 

Kachok dumpsite

The High court in Kisumu has temporarily stopped the planned relocation of the infamous Kachok dumpsite that has been at the center of controversy in governor Anyang’ Nyong’o’s first 100 days in office.

This is after two residents of Kajulu challenged the exercise in what they said possess a grave health concern to both area residents and the whole of Kisumu town.

In a petition filed at the Lands and Environmental court, the duo, Fredrick Nyesi and Rose Nyanjong had argued that the county government of disregarded several factors before settling on Kajulu in Kisumu East to resettle the eyesore.

They said that locals were not consulted with environmental assessment on the impact of relocating the dumpsite to Kajulu also not done.

The duo told the court that the proposed pit where the dumpsite is set to be relocated is filled with underground water that is likely to put the residents at a risk should toxic substances seep from the wastes.

“It is less than 200 metres from river Kibos and there is risk of seepage of toxic substance from the dumpsite to river Kibos which will have a great impact for those who stay along the river and depends on it for domestic use,” they argued.

On Wednesday, lawyers representing the parties enlisted in the suit engaged in a battle of wits as they sought to prove their case for and against the suit.

The two petitioners have sued the county government, city manager Doris Ombara as well as a company that had been awarded a Sh99.2 million tender to relocate the dumpsite.

They also told the court that the process of awarding the tender was also flouted and had been “shrouded in secrecy”.

The court heard that the county government was yet to receive a license from National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) giving it a green light to proceed with the relocation.

Moses Munuango, a lawyer representing the petitioners said that the rights of Kajulu residents to clean environment as listed under article 42 was bound to be compromised and asked the court to issue orders to stop the process.

“The respondents have also not gotten a license from Nema to continue with the relocation. That alone is enough to allow you to grant the orders,” said Munuango.

But Geoffrey Yogo, a lawyer representing the county government however said the petition was premature and that the county government was still pursuing a license from the environmental authority.

His arguments were also echoed by Bruce Odenyo, a lawyer representing the company that had been awarded the tender who argued that the residents did not complain to Nema about the planned exercise.

“The process of getting Nema approval also entails public participation but they have not complained to Nema,” said Odenyo.

“They can get a stop order from Nema but they did not do that,” he added.

In his ruling however, Justice Stephen Kibunjia issued conservatory orders barring the three respondents listed in the suit from relocating the dumpsite until the petition is heard.

He also directed the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit together with a written submission within seven days.

"The court grants conservatory orders," said Kibunjia.

The case will be mentioned in January 18. 2018.

[email protected]