A. T. KAMINCHIA v. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY and M/S BELL WAYS GARDEN LIMITED País/Territorio Kenya Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Jul 7, 2006 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal National Environment Tribunal at Nairobi Sede de la corte Nairobi Juez Kaniaru, D.Mumma, J.Waudo, S.Njihia, J. Idioma Inglés Materia Agua, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Derechos de agua Derecho de uso Normas sobre calidad ambiental Uso industrial del agua EIA Normas sobre calidad del agua Normas Resumen The Appellant A.T. Kaminchia was the proprietor of a piece of land located along Kirichwa Kubwa River in Nairobis Kileleshwa Estate. He appealed against the 1st respondent (NEMA)s, decision authorizing the 2nd respondent, M/S Garden Bellways Limited, to construct a perimeter wall along the bank of the river on a parcel of land adjacent to the Appellants piece of land but on the other side of the river. The Appellant in his appeal stated that the perimeter wall constructed by the 2nd Respondent along the river bank was going to obstruct the natural flow of the river; that during the rainy season when the river overflowed its banks the stone wall would force the river to change its course and encroach onto his land causing permanent and irreparable damage. He stated that he had requested the 1st Respondent, NEMA to investigate the 2nd Respondents development of the perimeter wall, after which NEMA issued a stop order instructing the 2nd Respondent not to interfere with the river bank and to allow a riparian way leave of six meters measured from the high water mark, an order that was ignored. The Appellant requested the Tribunal to confirm the stop order and enforce it. The 2nd Respondent in his defense denied having received the Stop Order from the 1st Respondent and averred that the perimeter wall had been moved after receiving a complaint from the Appellants employee and after the Nairobi City Councils area representative visited the site and stated that the wall would divert the course of the river as the wall was on the river bed. The 2nd Respondent also stated that they had maintained the six metre riparian way leave on which planning permission for this project was premised upon. The six metres were however measured from the centre line of the river. The tribunal ruled that, the 2nd Respondent observe the 1st Respondents EIA licence requirement of a six metre riparian reserve, measured from the high water mark; the perimeter wall in question be demolished and if re-built, should meet the six-metre riparian way leave required, measured from the high water mark.