Garbage collectors fail to block double tax at Nairobi

A group of garbage collectors in Nairobi have failed in its bid to abolish double taxatIon by the City Hall and the National Environment Management Authority Nema. The businesses wanted the county government to not charge them more than 20,000 for their trucks to collect and dispose of waste, according to the Waste and Environment Management Association of KenyaAssociation of Kenya.

They wanted to make a declaration that the charges levied by Nema for a licence to transport waste were unconstitutional, null and void.

They stated that Nema charges similar levies, other than the business permit and license fees by the city hall.

The mandate for garbage collection and disposal is a devolved function, according to the Constitution, so the businesses should not charge them any fees.

They said the licence fees for transportation of solid waste by Nema were illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

In the suit, the association said there was discrimination based on the fact that City Hall charges its members Sh 20,000 per truck to collect and dispose of garbage while companies in the same business pay the same amount for all their fleet trucks they own.

The lobby tried to dismantle the Nairobi County Solid Waste Management Act on the grounds that there was no public participation.

The judge rejected claims that Nema's collection of annual licence fees encroaches on the county mandate. He also rejected claims that licence fees are double taxation.

He said that the annual licence fees of Nema were premised on the existing provisions of the Environment Management and Coordination Act, 1999, and the Environment Management Waste Regulations 2006, which have not been declared unconstitutional.

The judge stated that the Association did not pled any of the requisite claims of unconstitutionality in law.

They had claimed that Sections 87, 88 and 89 of the Environment Management and Coordination EMCA Act, 1999 were unconstitutional as the duties, alluded to in the said sections, were devolved by the Constitution to the county government.

Justice Mboya said that the petition was pretty short and very economical in the content and lacking in particulars. There is no paragraph that outlines the disputed sections of the EMCA Act, 1999, and similarly there are no particulars that have been pleaded or supplied to underscore the manner in which the disputed sections contravene or violate Part Two of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.

It was incumbent on the Petitioner to raise his complaint in the body of the Petition and thereafter venture to supply the requisite particulars complained of, in an established manner, he stated.

The judge found that there was no credible and sufficient evidence to prove that there was discrimination on account of levying and charging differentiated license fees.