Court strikes out case challenging Sh16b Taifa Gas storage facility in Mombasa

The High Court had cleared the way for the Tanzania-owned company’s entry into the Kenyan liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) market through the construction of its Sh16 billion storage facility in Mombasa.

Justice Stephen Kibunja in his ruling said that the case filed by Likoni residents against Taifa Gas SEZ Kenya Ltd was similar to the one that had been settled by the National Environment Tribunal (NET), hence, could not be reopened.

According to Justice Kibunja, the residents led by Mohamed Said Ali and Raphael Mwadoe ought to have approached the tribunal on appeal if new issues arose on the environment impact assessment license issued to the Rostam Aziz-led company.

“I have no difficult in agreeing with the respondent’s counsel’s submission that the petitioners herein are persons claiming under the same title as the appellants in the NET Appeals Nos. 37, 41 & 46 of 2022 (Consolidated), which were decided vide the tribunal’s judgement of January 31, 2025."

"That having come to the finding that the issues and parties in this petition are the same as those in the NET appeals decided on 31st January 2024, it follows that this petition is re judicata and the preliminary objection is upheld, on that ground. The finding that the respondent’s preliminary objection on the ground of res-judicata is upheld, suffices to determine the petition and application herein,” ruled Justice Kibunja. 

The Tanzanian firm begun to construct a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage in Mombasa in 2023.

Taifa Gas SEZ Kenya Ltd intends to put up the facility with a capacity of 30,000 tons at the Dongo Kundu Special Economic Zone.

However, Taifa Gas which operates in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zambia, DRC, Tanzania, and South Africa. Its entry into the Kenyan market was crowded by a controversy over approvals and a tussle with squatters and landowners.

In the case, Said and Mwadoe claimed that learing will interfere clearing the area where the storage will be built would interfere with the coral rock and negatively affect the ecosystem.

At the same time, they claimed that debris and waste materials generated would harm the environment, and lead to deterioration of the suit land and its environs adding that the construction of a pipeline would lead to suspension sediments that will ruin the quality of water and penetration of light for the ecosystem in the surrounding sea water.

They further claimed that the construction of the pipeline would ruin the fishing grounds which is the livelihood of the local population, and pose as a danger to the fishermen and seafarers’ vessels.

The accused Taifa Gas of ignoring them while seeking approvals. The two asserted that the firm ought to have come to the ground to seek consent from the locals as it sought clearance from the government.

They also raised concern over the fate of indeginous trees in the area.

On the other hand, Aziz’s company argued that it had done a comprehensive public participation in the area by holding public barazas and calling for views and or concerns from anyone in the country by publishing notices in the newspapers.

Taifa Gas also explained that it had also detailed its operations and mitigation measures to ensure that its operations did not harm the environment.

The company also argued that it had also addressed social safety concerns and ensured that the project remains sustainable and compliant with environmental safeguards.

The Aziz-led company insisted that it had not breached any law or the constitutional.

On the other hand, Taifa Gas accused the two of filing a case that had already been settled, based on similar complaints and parties.

It argued that the NET had ruled out any illegality, irregularity or procedural impropriety in the licencing process, and which was again raised in the case.

According to Taifa Gas, the two ought to have exhausted all the processes provided for in the law before approaching the court.

While reacting to the ruling, Aziz said that the project would proceed while observing the law and conserving the environment.

“This ruling is not only a vindication of our commitment to due process and environmental responsibility, but also a milestone for Kenya’s energy transition,” he said.