Documents' translation delays mention of BP toxic waste dumping case

A law suit pitting Kenyan pastoralists against British oil multinational giants BP has hit a snag after the UK based firm sought for an English translation of petitioners pleadings. [Ali Abdi, Standard]

A lawsuit pitting Kenyan pastoralists against British oil multinational giant BP over alleged toxic waste dumping has hit a snag over document translation.

BP Plc, the first respondent in the lawsuit, sought copies of pleading documents from petitioners that are translated into English language during a virtual session at Environment and Land Court on Thursday before Justice Joseph Mboya Oguttu.

BP is represented by Senior Counsel Kamau Karori.

The suit by Asunta Galgitele and 298 others from Kargi and Kalacha trading centres in Marsabit county against BP and 11 others drawn from Kenyan government agencies was supposed to be mentioned on the material day for directions that would have enabled the court to set the procedural roadmap for the full hearing of the petition.

The session, however, turned into appraising the court on the service upon BP, which is headquartered in the UK.

"We were not able to serve the British Petroleum on account of two issues; one of the pertinent issue was that we were required to translate our document ----somewhat frustrating and disappointing, given that Kenya is predominantly an English-speaking nation," said Kelvin Kubai, one of the lawyers for the petitioners.

Mr Kubai added, "All our pleadings have been in English, so for the Foreign Commission and Development Office to ask us to translate our English further, from English to English...it beats logic".

The lawyer said all other respondents had not intimated that they had issues with the petitioners' pleadings while questioning the rationale behind BP's stand on 'translation' demand.

He pleaded with the judge, saying a remedy seeking clarification from BP on the issue of interpretation of its documents to ensure BP is properly on record so that they can tell the court and the people of Kenya what really happened in the 1980s.

The petitioners have now sought clarification from BP on the transition matter.

The court was adjourned to October 26 for confirmation and directions as to whether BP had been properly served on question of interpretation of documents for English translation.

In February 2026, the Ren'dille and Gabra pastoralists (petitioners) filed a class action lawsuit at the Environment and Land Court in Isiolo, alleging that BP PLC caused serious environmental pollution through the improper disposal and discharge of toxic waste from oil exploration activities in northern Kenya.

The petition alleges that exploration work carried out in the 1980s by Amoco Corporation — later acquired by BP in 1998 that were involved the drilling of several dry wells near Kargi and Kalacha in the Chalbi Desert.

They claimed that hazardous and radioactive contaminants from those operations were improperly discharged into the environment, contaminating groundwater and causing illness and death among hundreds of residents and livestock in the surrounding communities.

The petitioners have listed nearly 300 cancer-related deaths in the areas surrounding oil exploration sites while several wells had been abandoned following mass deaths of livestock.

Galgitele, who worked as a nurse at Kargi health centre and former member of County Assembly of Marsabit for Kargi Ward, stated in her affidavit that apart from compensation, BP should be compelled to set up a cancer treatment hospital in the area to serve the pastoralists communities.

"We want a fresh environmental assessment to be undertaken at the cost of BP to determine the extent of contamination of ground water as we fear the toxic waste has reached the water table," she said.

The suit seeks to highlight how multinational firms' exploration work directly affects indigenous and pastoralist communities in northern Kenya whose livelihoods depend on clean water and land.

It would also test corporate accountability as to whether a multinational corporation domiciled in a foreign country can be held liable for environmental degradation in a remote region of the world.