Companies

KPA wins reprieve in Sh56bn container terminal legal battle

dredging

Dredging of Mombasa port. FILE PHOTO | NMG

Kenya Ports Authority has got a reprieve after the court dismissed a petition challenging sea sand harvesting in South Coast to facilitate a Sh56 billion project for the construction of a container terminal and relocation of an oil terminal.

The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa ruled that the petition, which some South Coast residents filed lacked merit.

Justice Charles Yano further ruled that the KPA project was of great public importance and to uphold the public interest.

The ports agency had told the court that the construction of the container terminal, which is part of the Mombasa Port Development Project, was as of June last year 75 per cent complete and any stoppage would lead to a loss in structural integrity.

It also argued that the move would also lead to disputes between Kenya and her international partners and irrecoverable financial losses.

The residents were seeking to restrain and prohibit the KPA and Infrastructure Cabinet Secretary from harvesting sea sand and dumping material along the coastal line between Likoni and Diani.

The court noted that reports the residents filed in support of their petition were limited in time and scope and not sufficient to accurately demonstrate that there were any adverse effects of sand harvesting, dredging and dumping on the environment.

Justice Yano said the reports were too generalised and lacked necessary scientific backing to lent them credence.

“Unlike the petitioners (residents), the respondents have presented and tabled scientific reports that clearly show that the project has had no adverse impact on the environment, including the marine ecosystem,” he said.

The judge added that he concurred with the minister, KPA and the National Environment and Management Authority (Nema) that the petition was based on speculative and unfounded allegations.

“I am also in agreement with the respondents’ averments that sea sand is able to replenish itself within a short period of time,” said Justice Yano.

He said it was evident that Nema exercised its legal mandate to issue the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence to the KPA under the law.

The judge said there was evidence to show that public participation was conducted where stakeholders aired their concerns, suggestions and objections.

He added that no one, including the residents, challenged the grant of the EIA licence as provided for under Section 129 of the Environmental Management Coordination Act.

Through lawyers Augustus Wafula and Kevin Ngoya, the KPA told the court that the petitioners had not proved their case on a balance of probabilities as they never tendered credible evidence to prove their allegations.