JAMES MAHINDA & OTHERS v.DIRECTOR GENERAL-NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY and UNIVERSAL CORPORATION. Country/Territory Kenya Type of court Others Date Jan 31, 2008 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name National Environment Tribunal at Nairobi Seat of court Nairobi Judge DKanairu, J, Dwasi,AMumma,SStanley, JNjihia Language English Subject Environment gen. Keyword Noise standards Noise pollution Environmental standards Pollution control Abstract By notice of Appeal, the Appellants wanted that the 2nd Respondent, Universal Corp. be ordered to stop operating its factory in an area zoned residential. The grounds given by the Appellants were; that the factory emitted offensive smoke, vapors and fumes into other neighbouring residential homes; that the factory produced loud and disturbing noises from metal fabrication works and operating machines which often run nonstop for several days; that the 2nd Respondent continued to carry out the activities despite the inconvenience caused to others in the area; the noxious fumes caused irritation to both humans and livestock as well. The 2nd Respondent in response to the above stated that it carried out its activities in strict compliance with the conditions in its title document and pursuant to the licence granted to it by the National Environment Management Authority. They stated that the factory had installed legally required systems ensuring that no offensive/pollutive substances were released into the air. They adduced documentary evidence to this effect. With regard to the noise allegations they stated that all activities were carried out in the factory building and therefore could not affect the Appellants. They did however concede that at the time of carrying out the environmental impact assessment the noise level tests were not satisfactorily carried out. The tribunal after hearing witnesses for both sides found that, the company had proved their high environmental management standards while the Appellants had not adduced any sufficient evidence supporting their claims therefore the Appeal failed and declined to give the order prayed for. They however urged the company to examine what additional measures should be taken to reduce the noise further.