Fuel station owners in row with residents found guilty of contempt

Two directors of a company have been found in contempt of court for defying a judge’s directive to stop the construction of a petrol station at Kyuna Estate in Nairobi.

Environment and Land Court judge Oscar Angote ruled that Yusuf Abdi Hussein and Omar Ibrahim Abdi, the directors of Maar Petroleum Ltd had defied his order issued on April 24, to cease the works at the petrol station, which the residents opposed.

The court noted that the order directed the parties to maintain the status quo, meaning that there should be no further development on the property, pending the court’s decision.

“There is no doubt that the orders of this court, requiring the respondents to cease any further construction were clear, unambiguous and binding on them,” said the judge as he directed them to appear before him on January 23, 2024 for mitigation and sentencing.

Kyuna Neighbours Association sued the developer seeking to stop the construction of the pump station and service bay.

The residents claim that the approvals for the project issued by the various State agencies including the Nairobi City County, the National Environment Management Authority, Kenya Urban Roads Authority and the Energy Petroleum and Regulatory Authority were irregular.

The association, in an affidavit signed by chairman, Kimani Mathu said the projects violated the law and are unjustly compromising their safety.

he court documents attest approvals earlier issued to the developers were erroneous and were promptly revoked on the grounds that Kyuna lies in a zone that prohibits the proposed projects.

They said the plot lies in Zone Five of the Nairobi city development ordinances and zones, which stipulates the development of one residential dwelling house.

They later moved back to court accusing the developer of cutting down trees and destroying the environment and want the court to jail them or slap them with a fine of not less than Sh3 million each.

“As to whether the respondents had knowledge and notice of the said order, the applicants have rightly asserted that their counsel were present in court when the said order was made,” the judge said in the ruling.

The court noted that although the level of activities on the suit property appeared minimal, they all the same constituted a breach of the court’s order, as they were required to cease all construction on the property.

→ (email protected)