Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Maina Kamanda & another (Plaintiffs) v. Nairobi City Council & another (Defendants)

Pays/Territoire
Kenya
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Déc 8, 1992
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Juge
Akiwumi, A., M.
Numéro de référence
Civil Case No. 6153 of 1992
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Environnement gén., Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives
Résumé
The Applicants are two Nairobi residents and rate payers. They instituted an action against the 1st Respondent, the Nairobi City Council and the 2nd Respondent, the erstwhile Chairman of the Nairobi City Commission to restrain the 1st Respondent from permitting the 2nd Respondent to continue to enjoy certain facilities which he had enjoyed as the Chairman of the Nairobi City Commission. These facilities are the 1st Respondent’s house, its office known as the Mayor’s Parlour and telephones therein, and its Mercedes Benz motor car. The Applicants applied for a temporary injunction. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Applicants had no locus standi to bring the action they had brought since they had not shown that they had sufficient interest in seeking the relief they were seeking; that since what they claimed was a matter in the realm of a public wrong, ex relatione, they required permission of the Attorney General to being the action; that the Applicants improperly brought the action in a representative capacity; and that the Applicants are mere busy bodies who seek to abuse the process of the court by instituting the action. The Applicants responded that as rate payers, they had sufficient interest to object to a misuse of the funds of the 1st Respondent. The Court held that a ratepayer, as opposed to a tax payer, had sufficient interest to challenge in court the action of a public body to whose expenses he contributes. The Court went on to analyze whether the suit could be instituted as relator action without leave of the Attorney General. Referring to several other court decisions dealing with this issue the Court decided that even if the present action was a relator action, it would not prevent the Applicants from bringing to the notice of the Court the improper conduct of the 1st Respondent. The Court ruled that the Applicants had locus standi to bring the suit.
Texte intégral
Jud.Dec.Nat.pre.pdf
Disponible en
UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 78