Should recalcitrant county officials pay for environmental restoration from their own pockets?

24 January 2020 · Carmel Rickard

Judging from a recent case decided by Kenyan judge Dalmas Ohungo, working in the environment and land court can be a truly soul-destroying job. Virtually two years after the court delivered a judgment against a local county government for violating the right to a clean and healthy environment of the people in its area, the local authorities have done absolutely nothing to fix the situation – and they have consistently ignored the court’s orders.

Read judgment

While the rest of the world struggles with how to protect the environment and ward off worsening climate change, Kenya’s Nakuru county government is sitting back and doing nothing to clean up its act.

In February 2018 Judge Dalmas Ohungo of the environment and land court declared that the municipal council of Nakuru, along with the county government, had violated the rights of the people in the area to a clean and healthy environment. This violation had been effected in the way they operated the local Gioto waste disposal site. They had no licence to operate and the dump site threatened the health of residents.

The court ordered that the local authority had to apply for a waste disposal site licence within 30 days. The National Environment Management Authority (Nema) was then to consider the application and make a decision within 45 days. If the local authority disobeyed the court order and did nothing about it, Nema was to take up the matter and return to the court.

As the court appeared to anticipate, the local authorities did nothing at all about the order and so Nema went back to court. The matter was postponed four times so that the authorities could file a replying affidavit, but in the end no such document was ever filed.

Next, by agreement, the county secretary was ordered to attend court and report on what had been done to carry out the court’s order. On the due date, the official did not attend. It was reported that he was travelling outside the country. Judge Ohungo noted that no explanation was given to the court as to why he was travelling ‘while being fully aware of the summons … issued with the consent of his advocates.’

The county authorities had not applied for the waste disposal site licence almost two years after the orders were made. ‘No explanation has been offered as to the failure to apply, despite being given several opportunities and reminders to do so. One can only conclude that there is no willingness to obey this court’s orders and to take the simple step of applying for a waste disposal site licence so that Gioto is regulated by law.’

Obviously irritated by this inaction, the judge commented further that the local authorities 'do not have the luxury of choosing what to do with this court’s orders. There is only one acceptable course of action: obedience and compliance.’

The court had found in its earlier judgment that the dumpsite was being run in a way that violated the right to a clean and healthy environment. Instead of immediately ordering that the site be closed, the court decided to give the local authority a chance to comply. ‘Yet now we are faced with a situation where the (local authority) has not only failed to comply but is also unwilling to demonstrate efforts towards future compliance. We can no longer wait in uncertainty. Compliance with the orders and the law must now be immediate.’

Since there had been no effort to acquire a licence, the court ordered that all dumping or disposing of any waste, refuse or solid matter by the local authorities was to stop immediately. In addition, an environmental restoration order was issued requiring the county government to restore the dumpsite to ‘such a condition as shall be certified by Nema, upon inspection, as being safe to human health.’

The legal costs of the action were also to be paid by the county government, in other words, by the taxpayers.

It may appear a small issue involving a part of the world that few outside Kenya will know. But it is not insignificant at all: it shows the kind of struggle that local people must often wage to keep their environment safe and healthy. And the disrespect shown by many local authorities for the courts, the law, the people and the environment.

As the severe results of environmental degradation becoming increasingly clear, the question is whether the authorities that thumb their noses at the courts and the law, should not be subject to more individualised punishment, with recalcitrant officials made to pay for the cost of restoration or the legal costs of the action – or both – out of their own pockets.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.