The three Plaintiffs sued the 4 Defendants seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing a slaughter house within Limuru Township. The Plaintiffs, all of them living in the neighborhood of the slaughter house, claimed that the construction was in contravention of Section 58 and 75 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (ECMA), as the Defendants had not obtained a license to discharge effluent, nor had they undertaken an environmental impact assessment license. Furthermore, the Defendants’ actions were a violation of the Plaintiffs basic right to a clean and healthy environment. The defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claim and stated that the ECMA did not apply retrospectively, but in any way they had not breached any of its provisions. The slaughter house was being constructed to international standards. The Plaintiffs argued that there would be blood flowing from there which would mix with sand and mud and spill onto their homes and farm land. They were concerned that the animals walking by their houses to the slaughter house would drop ticks which were likely to bring diseases to their families and cattle. Moreover, no sewage had been built for disposal of waste from the slaughter house, so dirty water would flow onto their farms and those of the other neighbors. Bedsides that, witnesses claimed that there were several meetings, among others chaired by the District Commissioner, ordering the Defendant to stop the construction of the slaughter house, since they had no document of ownership of the plot they were constructing on. Finally, the “impact assessment” undertaken by the Defendants in relation to the slaughter house was produced without involving the community living around it. Summarizing, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants had breached Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Planning Act, which provides that “Every person in Kenya is entitled to a clean and healthy environment and has the duty to safeguard and enhance the environment.” The Court raised the issue of “locus” deciding that the Plaintiffs, though not the owners of the land in dispute, nevertheless had the authority to sue. This authority was derived from Section 3 (3) ECMA, which states, “if a person alleges that the entitlement to a clean and healthy environment has been, or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then (…) that person may apply to the High Court for redress (…).” The Court rejected the defense of the Defendants and granted a permanent injunction order to restrain the Defendant from continuing to construct the slaughter house.