Search
Close this search box.

SIFRA Escalates Water Charges Dispute to Tribunal After Court Dismissal


Eldoret: The Sixty-Four Residents Association (SIFRA) in Uasin Gishu County has turned to the Water Tribunal seeking justice after their petition against new water tariffs introduced by Eldoret Water and Sanitation Company (ELDOWAS) was dismissed by the Environment and Land Court (ELC).



According to Kenya News Agency, the ELC dismissed the case filed by SIFRA representative Kipkorir Menjo and co-petitioner David Kipkulet Chebet against Eldoret Water and Sanitation Limited and the Water Services Regulatory Board. The court cited lack of jurisdiction, effectively allowing a 300 percent increase in water charges. Justice Emmanuel Washe ruled that the petition was premature and violated sections of the Water Act, 2016, leading to its dismissal and the discharge of previous interim orders.



Speaking at a press briefing in Eldoret, SIFRA, through their advocate Kaira Nabasenge, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, arguing that the tariff hike violates the constitutional right to access clean water. Advocate Nabasenge emphasized that their petition was unfairly struck out on jurisdictional grounds, despite constitutional provisions suggesting otherwise.



Following the court’s decision, SIFRA has moved to the Water Tribunal while also pursuing an appeal in the Court of Appeal. Advocate Nabasenge noted that they are awaiting directions and preparing to file an application in the Court of Appeal seeking to halt the increased water charges.



The tariff adjustment by ELDOWAS, announced via Kenya Gazette Notice No. 12825 dated October 4, 2024, has sparked outrage among residents. SIFRA and its members, led by Kipkorir Menjo, have voiced concerns about the potential impact of the tariff hike on life and business in Uasin Gishu County. Menjo argued that the increase is unjustified given the gravity-fed water supply in Eldoret and suggested alternative financing for capital projects instead of burdening consumers with high tariffs.



The case underscores a broader debate on the balance between infrastructure funding and the constitutional right to accessible and affordable water.

Pages