Environment and Land Court in Kisumu has stopped two former governors and a former Environment Secretary from invading riparian land on Lake Victoria.

Justice Samson Odhiambo Okong’o in his judgment ruled that the defendants, former governors, Evans Odhiambo Kidero (Nairobi), Jack Nyanungo Ranguma (Kisumu) and former Environment Secretary Alice Akinyi Kaudia had illegally infringed on the Lake Victoria riparian reserve by extending the fences around their parcels of land beyond their demarcated boundaries.

The judge issued a permanent injunction restraining the three defendants by themselves or through their employees or agents from implementing or engaging in any activity or construction works that interfere with the Lake Victoria’s riparian reserve.

Justice Okong’o also made a declaration that the communities living along Lake Victoria have a right to unhindered access to the lake through the access roads provided for that purpose, save where such access is restricted or limited by law.

He ordered Ranguma to remove, within 90 days from the date of the judgment, the illegal perimeter walls built beyond the demarcated boundaries of his two parcels of land, Title Nos. Kisumu/Korando/3755 and 3756 and extending to the lake riparian reserve, and to further move boundaries of his two parcels of land to the determined boundaries of the said parcels of land.

Kidero was ordered to resurvey – at his cost – the land parcel, Title No.Kisumu/Korando/5232 within 90 days from the date of the judgment and reopen the public access road that traverses through the property, which was closed following the amalgamation exercise that gave rise to the property.

The plaintiff, Michael Otieno Nyaguti had moved to court in 2013 and prayed that the three defendants be compelled to remove the fencing they had made to their properties beyond their demarcated boundaries, illegally encroaching on the Lake Victoria wetland and wildlife grazing reserve that exposed the ecosystem to degradation and denied the community access to the waterfront.

He stated that the right of the community to access and sustainably exploit the natural resources of the Lake Victoria wetland had been hindered and sought an order restraining the trio from continuing any act or omission that is harmful to the environment around the lake.

Otieno stated that he was suing on behalf of the Magnam Environment Network that championed environmental conservation and sustainable exploitation of natural resources among the fishing community around Lake Victoria.

He claimed that the construction of residential buildings next to the lake poses a pollution danger from raw sewage spillover and domestically generated waste flowing into the lake, hence threatening biodiversity along the lakeshore.

The activist argued that the communities living around the lake, who depend on the lake water, must be protected against polluting agents, further stating that he wrote to the defendants to address the community’s environmental concerns, but no response was received.

He produced letters dated   October 4, 2013 and February 12, 2013, an email message, a letter dated March 23, 2013 and other documents in court to show that he had tried to reach out to the defendants to no avail.

It was after this that Otieno moved to court to seek orders to stop construction of illegal structures around the waterfront under the supervision of the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Ministry of Environment that were also cited as defendants in the suit.

Otieno also sought for a permanent injunction barring the defendants, their employees, workers, agents and or whosoever serves under their orders jointly and severally restraining them from implementing or further engaging in any activity or construction works likely to cause harm to the environment in the disputed wetland area.

The defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint and averred that they developed their parcels of land after an exhaustive and extensive environmental audit and obtaining all the relevant approvals.

They denied any wrongdoing in the development of the said properties and declared that the plaintiff was a busybody who was out to advance narrow self-interests under the guise of public interest and that as citizens of Kenya, they had the right to own and develop property as envisaged under Article 40 of the Constitution, subject to obtaining all the relevant approvals.

Ms Kaudia also averred that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against her and was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

She stated that she had put up on Title Nos Kisumu/Kogony/3582 and Kisumu/Kogony/3583, a community training and environment education facility, a project that had been in place since 2009/2010 and vehemently denied that the said parcels of land and the structures constructed thereon were in a wetland and were more than 182 meters, from the high-watermark, which is generally understood as the historically recorded point of the highest level of contact between the water and the shore.

Kaudia and avowed that she had constructed a septic tank and no waste was being discharged into the lake and that her properties were well-maintained and responsibly run facilities with lush grass that attracted hippopotamus and unlawful grazing and were therefore protected by a low barricade for the safety of the facilities, occupants, and the third defendant’s reasonable and lawful riparian land owner rights.

She further indicated that the plaintiff was a frivolous, vexatious, and opportunistic litigant who was pursuing a selfish agenda in the suit.

She stated to the court that there were several landowners and occupiers of land in or around the subject areas, and that the choice of her and the two former governors was not a coincidence, given that they were prominent citizens who fit the profile that the plaintiff wished to exploit.

Kaudia averred that the plaintiff was seeking personal benefit through the suit, which was not anchored in fact, law or even a proper cause of action and prayed that the suit be struck out and or dismissed with costs.

In his judgment, Justice Okong’o said he was satisfied that the plaintiff had proved his case against the trio on a balance of probabilities.

• A Tell Media / KNA report / By Mabel Keya Shikuku