https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4300

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUNGOMA** **ELC PETITION NO. E003 OF 2025** IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 22 (2)(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 10, 19(1) & (2), 21(1), 23, 27(1) & (2), 28, 35, 42, 69, 70(1)(2), 162(2)(b) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 3, 58(2) & (5), 59, 60, 87, 89 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION ACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION (WASTE MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 13 OF THE ELC ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND ASSET DISPOSAL ACT AND ARTICLE 12(2)(B) OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS (ICESR) AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMANS AND PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 24(1)(2) OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 4(2)(C) OF THE BASEL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 25 (1) OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IN THE MATTER OF PRINCIPLE 1 OF THE 1992 RIO DECLARATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT **BETWEEN** **LUMBUGU JEFFREY JAMES ……………….……...…… PETTITIONER** **AND** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF BUNGOMA …...…. 1ST RESPONDENT** **TAXAN INVESTMENT LIMITED ………….………. 2ND RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Petitioner, a resident of Bungoma County, Kanduyi Municipality, filed the petition dated 24/7/2025 against the County Government of Bungoma, which is a devolved county government established under Article 176 of the Constitution, and which is responsible for environmental management, public health and general administration within Bungoma County. The 2nd Respondent is a limited liability company which was contracted by the 1st Respondent to carry out construction and related works at Kanduyi Market. The Petitioner, who brought the suit on his own behalf and in the public interest, claimed that sometime between 1/1/2024 and 26/4/2024, the 1st Respondent awarded a tender to the 2nd Respondent for the construction of market stores and other structures at Kanduyi Market in Bungoma Municipality. To execute that contract it was necessary to demolish the old structures, a portion of which had been built using asbestos. 2. The Petitioner averred that asbestos is a hazardous material with great health and environmental implications, which demand careful handling and disposal in line with the applicable laws and international best practices. Further, that asbestos was classified as hazardous waste under the Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and the Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management) Regulations, 2006 which provides at regulation 4 (1) that no person shall dispose of any hazardous waste except in the manner prescribed by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). The Regulations stipulate that asbestos must be dismantled, removed, transported and disposed of only by persons or entities licensed by NEMA. 3. The Petitioner averred that the demolition and disposal of the materials containing asbestos from the demolished structures at Kanduyi Market was not undertaken in compliance with the prescribed legal requirements because there was no evidence of the engagement of a licensed hazardous waste handler for the removal or disposal and there was no record of the disposal at a NEMA designated hazardous waste facility. 4. He contended that the Respondent did not provide evidence of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) or risk management plan concerning the handling of the asbestos. He expressed concern that the asbestos may have been disposed of irresponsibly yet it is one of the most hazardous construction materials, exposure to which can result in life threatening respiratory diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, chronical public health crisis and environmental contamination. 5. The Petitioner averred that through his advocate’s letter dated 16/6/2025, he sought information pertaining to the management and disposal of the asbestos pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to access information held by the State necessary for the enforcement or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. Despite the request, the 1st Respondent failed to provide the information sought under the Constitution and Access to Information Act. 6. The Petitioner averred that the Respondent’s failure to dispose the hazardous asbestos waste as required by law, conduct an EIA, disclose material information to the members of public and take corrective action to address and eliminate the environmental hazard not only constituted gross violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment enshrined in Article 42 of the Constitution, but that it also contravened the right to access information guaranteed by Article 35; protection of dignity under Article 28 and also breached the duty of the State to ensure the sustainable management of natural resources and eliminate activities that endangered the environment. 7. The Petitioner cited Sections 89, 91 and 141 of EMCA and Section 165 of Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act in support of his claim. He also referred to Article 12 (2) (b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which enjoins State parties to take steps towards the realization of the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. Additionally, he referred to Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Article 24 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Further, he cited Article 4 of the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which requires parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that persons involved in the management of hazardous wastes take steps to prevent pollution. 8. The Petitioner pleaded particulars of breaches of the Constitution and other relevant laws against the Respondent regarding the manner in which the hazardous asbestos was disposed of. He contended that the 1st Respondent failed to ensure that the asbestos was disposed of at a designated landfill which violated the rights of the Petitioner, children and residents of Kanduyi to a clean and healthy environment contrary to Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution and international conventions ratified under Article 2 of the Constitution. 9. He contended that the 1st Respondent failed to ensure the sustainable exploitation and management of the environment by not guaranteeing proper disposal of hazardous waste. Further, that it failed to establish proper systems of environmental audit and monitoring of the process of the disposal of the asbestos contrary to Article 69 of the Constitution. 10. The Petitioner sought a declaration that his right to a clean environment and that of the residents of Kanduyi was violated, threatened and infringed by the Respondents. He sought a declaration that his right to receive information under Article 35 of the Constitution was violated by the 1st Respondent. He sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Respondents to identify and relocate the asbestos to a suitable site for disposal of the waste in accordance with EMCA and for the Respondents to bear the cost of restoring the environment where the hazardous asbestos was dumped by the 2nd Respondent in Kanduyi area as far as practicable to the condition it was in prior to the deposit. He sought an environmental restoration order against the 1st Respondent, compensation for the violation of his right to a clean and healthy environment and costs. 11. The 1st Respondent opposed the petition through the replying affidavit sworn by John Bayayi Munialo. He termed the Petitioner a busybody with no valid interest in the disposal of the asbestos and averred that the letter requesting for information was not served on the 1st Respondent. He deponed that the Petitioner had not given the grounds that made him think that the asbestos or other waste was unlawfully or improperly disposed of. 12. He argued that the Petitioner had failed to provide evidence to show that the asbestos was removed from the site without compliance with the NEMA licence and added that in any event the waste was never removed from the site and was instead securely buried within the site. He emphasized that the disposal was guided by the EIA report as required by law and went on to explain that the waste was properly disposed and buried under the ground going 15 meters deep before it was securely covered hence there was no possibility of exposing the population to the risk of asbestos or any other harmful waste from the site. 13. Mr. Munialo stated that there was no possible harm worth the court’s intervention because the Respondent complied with the law and no harm was caused to the public. He asserted that the few wastes were securely buried on 22/6/2024. He exhibited images of the site and completed works taken on 4/8/2025 and urged that the claim was overtaken by events. He averred that the application was contrary to public policy and was meant to frustrate the work of the 1st Respondent for political expediency. He annexed photographs of some structures comprising the Kanduyi bus park project. 14. The petition was canvassed through written submissions. The Petitioner submitted that Article 42 of the Constitution was not a mere aspirational goal but was a living charter and a supreme command that must translate into real protection for people. He cited **George Michael Wanjohi v Steven Kariuki & 2 Others [2014]** where the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional controversies regarding environmental threat must be addressed with urgency. He argued that by burying hazardous asbestos, a known carcinogen within Kanduyi Market site, the Respondents had prioritized administrative convenience over the lives and respiratory health of the residents of Bungoma County. 15. The Petitioner invited the court to adopt the precautionary principle which was reaffirmed in **Robert Njenga and Daniel Irungu Maina v Sylvester Njihia Wanyoike & Bahati Africa Limited [2020] KEELC 1864 (KLR)** where the court stated that noncompliance with hazardous licenses warranted immediate judicial intervention. He also cited **Seli & 10 Others v Nairobi County Government & Others [2024] KEE LC 5998 (KLR)** where the court held that if potential for irreparable harm is demonstrated, the court is bound to issue orders to stop the harmful act. 16. The Petitioners submitted that the actions of the Respondent constituted a grave breach of the public trust doctrine and the polluter pays principle yet Article 69 of the Constitution places a fiduciary duty on the 1st Respondent to eliminate activities that are likely to endanger the environment. He urged that a party responsible of pollution must bear the full economic cost of restoration. 17. That by ignoring the Waste Management Regulations of 2006 and Section 165 of the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act which require specialized handling of toxic assets, the Respondents had shifted the toxic debt of their project onto the public. He invited the court to invoke its powers under Article 70 of the Constitution and issue orders to compel the Respondents to relocate the waste at their cost to ensure that those who benefit from development also pay or compensate the Petitioner for the environmental violations. He went further to argue that the legal consequences of the breaches were founded on the polluter pays principle, which dictates that those who cause environmental degradation must bear the full cost of restoration. 18. The Petitioner cited Section 13 (7) of the ELC Act which empowers the court to issue orders for restoration and damages. He added that EMCA contemplated monetary redress as part of environmental restoration enforcement. He relied on **Export Processing Zone Authority & 10 Others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all Residents of Owino – Uhuru Village in Mikindani, Changamwe Area, Mombasa v National Environment Management Authority & 3 Others [2024] KESC 75 (KLR)** where the Supreme Court treated the environmental harm as a continuing constitutional violation and reinstated the monetary award and restoration orders which the Court of Appeal had set aside. 19. The Petitioner submitted that he was seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the Respondents to relocate the asbestos which they buried at Kanduyi to a facility licensed by NEMA and restore the Kanduyi Market to its original condition at their cost in tandem with the principle of *restitutio in integrum* which advocates for restoration of the affected environment to the condition it was in before the violation. He argued that the Respondents should not be allowed to benefit from the cost saving of their disposal methods while leaving the community to bear the long term health risk of toxic exposure. 20. It was the Petitioner’s contention that the polluter pays principle, which is internationally recognized as a tenet of environmental law was domesticated by Section 3 of EMCA. That by failing to follow the Waste Management Regulations of 2006, the Respondents chose the path of environmental degradation. He relied on **Friends of Lake Turkana Trust v Attorney General & 2 others [2014] eKLR** where the court affirmed that the State and private entities must be held financially responsible for activities that threaten the environment. He argued that he was entitled to compensation for the violation of his right to a clean environment and his right to information which the Respondents breached when they refused to disclose the details of the toxic waste management. 21. He concluded that by burying the hazardous asbestos containing materials within a public market, the Respondent effectively weaponized a development project against the very citizens it was meant to serve. He urged that the Respondents prioritized administrative convenience over the long term safety of the community and that it turned a public site into a toxic legacy for present and future generations. He urged that the law on the disposal of hazardous wastes like asbestos was clear that it must be handled by specialized and licensed professionals and it must be disposed of in designated facilities. 22. The 1st Respondent submitted that the Petitioner did not file an affidavit to support the petition and only filed one in support of the application dated 24/7/2025. It argued that the Petitioner was a busybody with no valid interest in the matter and that the petition was filed in bad faith and was an abuse of the court process. It went further to argue that the Petitioner failed to provide any grounds upon which he thought that asbestos or other waste was unlawfully or improperly disposed of. 23. The 1st Respondent submitted that the circumstances for consideration before grant of an injunction were settled in **Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358**. It argued that the Petitioner had failed to establish a *prima facie* case and had not demonstrated any harm that was occasioned to warrant the orders in the petition. The 1st Respondent cited **Mrao Limited v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others [2003] KLR 125** on what constitutes a *prima facie* case. The 1st Respondent submitted that the Petitioner did not disclose any evidence that the waste or asbestos was improperly disposed. Further, that he failed to demonstrate any possible harm or safety issues against himself or the public. 24. According to the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner would not suffer substantial loss that could not adequately be compensated by damages if an injunction was not granted. It added that the Petitioner could not claim that he would suffer irreparable loss incapable of compensation by an award of damages because the worn out building was already demolished and the waste buried under the ground as per healthy and safety procedures. 25. The 1st Respondent argued that the purpose of an injunction was to restrain that which is threatened to occur or is being undertaken in breach of one’s right yet in this case the Petitioner had not demonstrated any breach of right against him or anyone else worthy of the injunction sought. It argued that the application for injunction had been overtaken by events. 26. Regarding the balance of convenience, the 1st Respondent argued that it stood to suffer more that the Petitioner if an injunction was granted because of the ongoing construction on a clear and clean site without asbestos or other waste lying openly on site. The 1st Respondent contended that the balance of convenience tilted in its favour. 27. The 1st Respondent argued that the Petitioner made baseless allegations and did not bring a medical report or scientific lab analysis showing that there was asbestos around Kanduyi as the Petitioner claimed. Further, that just because some waste initially existed at a site did not necessarily make it poisonous unless there was a report to demonstrate this. 28. The 1st Respondent invited the court to pronounce itself on the issue of timelines because the court had initially indicated that the matter had to be settled within 6 months yet from 6/11/2025 until May 2026 the matter had not been settled. The 1st Respondent argued that the court was *functus officio*. 29. On the prayer for compensation made by the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent argued that the Petitioner had not demonstrated to the court what he was to be compensated for and did not file any evidence demonstrating any specific harm which he had suffered to warrant the compensation. The 1st Respondent urged the court to dismiss the petition with costs to the Respondents. 30. The 2nd Respondent did not participate in the proceedings. The issue for determination is whether the court should grant the reliefs sought in the petition. The crux of the Petitioner’s claim is that the Petitioner’s right to a clean and healthy environment and that of the residents of Kanduyi, was violated or threatened when the 1st Respondent disposed of asbestos, which is hazardous, in the Kanduyi market without complying with the legal requirements prescribed under EMCA. He contended that the 1st Respondent did not engage a licensed hazardous waste handler during the removal and disposal of the asbestos and that hazardous waste was not disposed in a hazardous waste facility designated by NEMA. 31. Section 58(2) of EMCA enjoins a proponent of any project specified in the Second Schedule to undertake a full EIA study and submit an EIA study report to NEMA prior to being issued any licence by NEMA, although NEMA may direct that a proponent forego the submission of the EIA study report in certain cases. Waste disposal including the removal and onsite disposal of asbestos is listed as one of the medium risk projects that require an EIA study report under the Second Schedule under EMCA. 32. Waste disposal management is one of the methods vide which an accounting officer of a procuring entity may dispose assets under Section 165 of the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act. This is subject to the prescribed provisions, which in this case would be EMCA and the Regulations under it. The 1st Respondent was bound by this clause when it removed or caused the removal of the roofing materials containing asbestos from the buildings in Kanduyi and its disposal. 33. The 1st Respondent’s position was that it disposed the hazardous waste in the proper manner, by burying it under the ground. It termed the Petitioner as a busybody and argued that there was nothing left for the court to address regarding the disposal of the asbestos in Kanduyi area. It claimed in the Replying Affidavit it filed in opposition to the application for grant of conservatory orders, that the asbestos had been disposed and that by 30/7/2024 the site had been cleared and construction had taken shape. 34. If indeed the 1st Respondent disposed the asbestos in Kanduyi by 30/7/2024, then the applicable Regulations at the time were the Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management Regulations) 2006, Part IV of which dealt with hazardous and toxic waste. Regulation 16 read with the Fourth Schedule classified Y36 wastes containing asbestos in fiber or dust form as one of the wastes considered hazardous. Regulation 17 forbade the undertaking of activities likely to generate hazardous waste without a valid EIA licence issued by NEMA under the provisions of EMCA, which in this case would be Regulations 58 and 91. Pursuant to Regulation 17, the 1st Respondent could not have undertaken the removal and disposal of asbestos from the buildings in Kanduyi without an EIA license issued by NEMA. Rule 19 gave guidance on how hazardous waste was to be treated. 35. The 1st Respondent did not tender any evidence before this court to show that it engaged a licensed hazardous waste handler or that it obtained an EIA from NEMA before the removal and disposal of the asbestos in Kanduyi. It is not lost to this court that vide the letter dated 16/6/2025, the Petitioner sought information regarding the disposal of the asbestos from the 1st Respondent but this was not furnished. The 1st Respondent denied that the information was sought. Under Section 3A of EMCA, the Petitioner had a right to information held by the 1st Respondent regarding the handling and disposal of the asbestos in Kanduyi area. That right is also guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution. 36. Article 42 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment. The right comprises various components. One of these is the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and the measures set out in Article 69. EMCA and the Regulations under it are among the legislative measures contemplated in Article 42. The other components of the right to a clean and healthy environment are the right to access the court when it is alleged that the right to a clean and healthy environment has been denied, violated or threatened and for the court to grant appropriate remedies. 37. Article 69 (1) imposes duties on the State with respect to the environment. According to Article 260, *“State”* refers to entities comprising the government of Kenya, and which incorporates the 1st Respondent as a devolved unit of government. Article 69 (1) of the Constitution places a duty on the 1st Respondent to *inter alia*, ensure the sustainable management and conservation of the environment; encourage public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment; establish systems of EIA, environmental audit and monitoring of the environment; and to eliminate activities that are likely to endanger the environment. Article 69 (2) extends the duty to every person to cooperate with State organs and other persons to protect and conserve the environment. 38. Article 70 clothes this court with jurisdiction to give directions it considers appropriate to prevent, stop or discontinue any act or omission that is harmful to the environment. Additionally, the court may compel any public officer to take measures to prevent or discontinue any act or omission that is harmful to the environment. Article 70 of the Constitution speaks to the protection of the environment for its intrinsic value and not merely for the value that humans derive from it. The protection afforded to the environment under Article 70 denotes an ecocentric approach as opposed to the anthropogenic approach, which places humans at the heart of environmental conservation. 39. Section 3 (4) of EMCA restates what is in Article 70 that a person has capacity to bring an action to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment notwithstanding that such a person cannot show that the defendant’s act or omission has caused or is likely to cause him any personal loss or injury. The only rider is that such action should not be frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the court process. The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s claim was frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the court process. 40. The 1st Respondent urged that the matter had been overtaken by events because it had disposed the asbestos complained of by burying it in the soil. Section 93 of EMCA prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances into segments of the environment contrary to EMCA and the Regulations made under it. In this court’s view, the 1st Respondent’s failure to dispose the asbestos in Kanduyi in the manner prescribed under EMCA and the Regulations made under it resulted in environmental harm in the form of soil pollution. 41. The fact that the asbestos was already buried does not take away the court’s duty to provide redress under Article 70 of the Constitution and EMCA. Courts have dealt with the issue of soil pollution in environmental disputes and given restorative orders. In **Export Processing Zone Authority & 10 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all residents of Owino-Uhuru Village in Mikindani, Changamwe Area, Mombasa) v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others (Petition E021 of 2023) [2024] KESC 75 (KLR),** the Supreme Court of Kenya set aside the Court of Appeal’s determination on restorative damages and reinstated the sum of Kshs. 700 million issued by the Environment and Land Court (ELC) to NEMA to restore the environment. The ELC had directed the Respondents to clean up the soil and remove any wastes deposited within the Settlement within 4 months. 42. The ELC issued an environmental restoration order requiring the Respondents to inter alia, restore the Petitioners’ damaged land, soil and the environment to its original status or to the satisfaction of the court within 120 days of the date of the judgment in **Kimeu & 3074 Others v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd & Another [2025] KEELC 5239 (KLR).** 43. The Petitioner sought compensation for the violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment without any indication as to the compensation sought. Although Article 70 empowers the court to provide compensation for any victim of a violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment, such a victim would be required to demonstrate the harm suffered and give an indication of how the court is to assess the appropriate compensation. 44. From the 1st Respondent’s submissions, it contended that the Petitioner failed to give the grounds upon which he thought the asbestos was improperly disposed and that he had not demonstrated any possible harm or safety issues against himself and the public. The right environmental justice approach under the Constitution, EMCA and the international environmental conventions and treaties which Kenya has ratified pursuant to Article 2(6), is that this court is guided by the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle when it exercises the jurisdiction conferred by Section 3 of EMCA. The Petitioner is not obligated to demonstrate harm as the 1st Respondent contended in light of the fact that asbestos is hazardous and EMCA prescribes how it should be handled and disposed of. Failure to deal with the hazardous asbestos as prescribed by law attracts restorative measures in line with the polluter pays principle. 45. The 1st Respondent based its submissions on the requirements for an interlocutory injunction yet what the Petitioner sought was a mandatory injunction. It termed the Petitioner as a busybody and argued that he had not proved the loss he suffered to warrant the prayer for compensation. The 1st Respondent overlooked Article 70 of the Constitution which stipulates that an applicant who alleges that the right to a clean and healthy environment has been violated, infringed or violated can move the court for redress without demonstrating that they incurred loss or suffered injury. A mere allegation suffices when one looks at the wording in Article 70. 46. Regulation 4 of the Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management) Regulations which came into force on 4/11/2024 forbids any person from disposing hazardous waste in any public place except in a designated waste receptacle. Regulation 14 provides that the categories of wastes or wastes having the characteristics specified in the Fifth Schedule is classified as hazardous waste. Rule 14 of the Fifth Schedule provides a list of hazardous waste and lists Y36 as wastes containing asbestos in dust or fiber form. Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that asbestos is still classified as hazardous waste by the Regulations currently in force. 47. The Petitioner has proved on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent failed to comply with the regulations under EMCA when it removed and disposed of the asbestos in Kanduyi Market. 48. The Petitioners and the residents of Kanduyi Municipality’s right to a clean and health environment was violated and infringed by the 1st Respondent when it buried the asbestos in Kanduyi without following the legal requirements stipulated in EMCA and the Regulations under it. 49. The 1st Respondent breached the Petitioner’s right to access information enshrined in Article 35 of the Constitution when it failed to provide the information requested by the Petitioner. 50. A mandatory injunction is issued to compel the County Government of Bungoma to dig up and remove the asbestos, which it buried in Kanduyi area, and relocate it to a suitable disposal site in accordance with EMCA under the supervision and oversight of NEMA within 30 days of the date of this judgment. 51. The County government is directed to file a report confirming that it has dug out and disposed of the asbestos it buried in Kanduyi in the prescribed manner within 45 days of today. 52. The 1st Respondent will bear the costs of restoring the environment where it had dumped the asbestos in Kanduyi area to the condition or state that it was in before the asbestos was buried there. 53. The 1st Respondent is directed to engage an expert to conduct an EIA before the removal, handling and proper disposal of the asbestos buried in Kanduyi area. Public Health Officials should be involved in the exercise to ensure public safety. 54. The Petitioner is awarded the costs of the petition against the 1st Respondent. Delivered virtually at Bungoma this 29th day of June 2026. **K. BOR** **JUDGE** **In the presence of: -** Mr. Enock Namude for the Petitioner Ms. Abigael Walaka for the 1st Respondent Court Assistants- Bett/Metrine No appearance for the 2nd Respondent