Online Reporter
Arron Nyamayaro
THE legal showdown between the Katonha twins — Lawyer Farai and Mayor Tendai — who dragged Koala Park Abattoir to court over air pollution along Seke Road, is expected to reach a climax today when judgment will be handed down.
The twins say they are relying on Section 73(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act, 2013.
They say it provides that every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations.
In their court papers, the twins said:
“It is admitted that the 1st Respondent (Koala Park) has operated an abattoir for approximately 25 years. However, such operations are distinct from the cattle ranching activities presently complained of, which only commenced towards the end of 2024, in the area of concern.
“The allegation regarding employment of over 1,000 employees is irrelevant to the issues before the court.
“The complaint relates specifically to the poorly managed paddock area, which has no bearing on the abattoir or butchery operations.
“The 1st Respondent’s ownership of approximately 22 hectares enables it to implement reasonable mitigation measures, including relocating cattle further from the main road or improving waste management practices, without prejudicing its workforce.”
They added: “Ownership of the property is not in dispute and is irrelevant.
“The present application concerns environmental rights as guaranteed under Section 73 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013. The 1st respondent conflates land use issues with environmental concerns. The matter before this Court pertains air pollution.
“While an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) certificate may have been issued in 2022, it predates the commencement of the cattle fattening operations in 2024 and could not have addressed the current environmental impacts.
“The absence of prior identification of air pollution does not negate its existence.
“The existence of licenses does not entitle the 1st Respondent to disregard environmental concerns raised by members of the public.”
They also addressed the issue of permits which the Koala Park management have received from relevant authorities.
“While permits from the local authority may have been obtained, they do not expressly authorise cattle ranching activities at the site in question.
“Furthermore, such permits do not override constitutional environmental rights.
“The emphasis on permits is misplaced in light of the ongoing air pollution concerns.
“A butchery licence does not authorise infringement of environmental rights.
“Moreover, the activities complained of occur at a site near the Chinhamo area which is approximately three kilometres from the abattoir and butchery.
“These arguments being advanced hereto are misplaced. There is no proof that regulatory authorities such as EMA have recently inspected the specific site and found no issues.”
They added: “The averments are misleading. The present matter concerns the infringement of environmental rights, which remain enforceable.
“The contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction is founded.
“This Court is competent to grant interdictory relief compelling compliance with environmental obligations and restraining unlawful conduct.
“As alluded to, erstwhile, the relief sought is limited to interdicting air pollution at the highlighted place along Seke Road and does not involve cancellation of licenses or cessation of lawful business operations. The 1st Respondent misconstrues the relief sought.
“The Applicant merely seeks reasonable measures, including relocation of cattle away from the main road or implementation of effective waste management systems. The central issues remain unresolved air pollution caused by dust and odour. The Applicant seeks practical remedial measures.”
The Environmental Management Agency and the Ministry of Health and Child Care are the second and third Respondents.
