ERICK MOGIRE NYAKOGO & 7 others v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAKURU & 3 others [2012] KEHC 2573 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT

AT NAKURU

Petition 38 of 2011

IN THE MATTERS OF ARTICLES 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTERS OF AN ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMSUNDER

ARTICLES 40, 42, 69, 70 OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 12 OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OFSOCIAL

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND THE EVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION ACT

BETWEEN

ERICK MOGIRE NYAKOGO...........................................................................................1ST PETITIONER

RACHAEL OCHANDO...................................................................................................2ND PETITIONER

JOSEPH OGEMBO........................................................................................................3RD PETITIONER

JOEL NYANDIEKA.........................................................................................................4TH PETITIONER

JUSTUS GATECHA......................................................................................................5TH PETITIONER

ABSALOM ODHIAMBO..............................................................................................6TH PETITIONER.

SAMWEL KARANJA MBUTHI......................................................................................7TH PETITIONER

HESBON IKALA............................................................................................................8TH PETITIONER

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAKURU........................................................................1st RESPONDENT

THE HON. MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT & MINERAL RESOURCES...........2ND RESPONDENT

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................................3RD RESPONDENT

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY....................................4TH RESPONDENT

DIRECTIONS

Apart from the 4th respondent who has filed grounds of opposition, the rest have not responded to the petition.

It is now directed that:

i)those respondents who have not responded to file and serve their replies within 14 days;

ii)pursuant to Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution, parties to file/exchange written submissions within 21 days, with the petitioners doing so first, to demonstrate that the petition raises a substantial question of law that the petitioners’ rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated or infringed by the respondents

iii)Highlight of the submissions on 27. 3.2012

W. OUKO

JUDGE