[2019] KEELC 4888 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4888 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, with evidence, that the noise levels from the Defendant's establishment exceeded permissible limits as defined by law or that the Defendant had failed to comply with hygiene requirements. The Plaintiffs did not provide measurements or guidelines from NEMA or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4888 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alexander Juras; Plaintiff: Elmira Aleynikova; Defendant: John Katana Baya t/a Club4Fun Restaurant, Pool and Bar
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 212 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environmental Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Noise Pollution, Environmental Impact Assessment, Injunctive Relief, Environmental Regulation
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Noise Pollution Environmental Impact Assessment Injunctive Relief Environmental Regulation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Juras

Plaintiff

Elmira Aleynikova

Plaintiff

John Katana Baya t/a Club4Fun Restaurant, Pool and Bar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environmental Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's business activities constituted unlawful noise pollution and environmental harm contrary to EMCA and related regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs demonstrated that the noise levels exceeded permissible limits and warranted injunctive relief.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was operating without the necessary environmental licences or in breach of an Environment Restoration Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, with evidence, that the noise levels from the Defendant's establishment exceeded permissible limits as defined by law or that the Defendant had failed to comply with hygiene requirements. The Plaintiffs did not provide measurements or guidelines from NEMA or any lead agency to substantiate their claims of excessive noise or environmental harm. Furthermore, there was no evidence before the court that the Defendant's establishment required an Environmental Impact Assessment Licence or that an Environment Restoration Order had been issued and disregarded. The Defendant, on the other hand, produced evidence of having obtained relevant...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated and filed on 19th November 2018 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Defendant/Respondent.