The Environmental Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from 10 African countries on topics relating to environmental law, both substantive and procedural. The collection focuses on cases where an environmental interest interacts with governmental or private interests.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-area expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
Read also JIFA's Environmental Country Reports for SADC
Sea Star Malindi Ltd v Kenya Wildlife Services & 2 others [2002] eKLR (Miscellaneous Civil Suit 982 of 1997); (08 November 2002); 
EL Index Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna Environmental law Sustainable development Concepts and principles Environmental law Protected areas (general) Environmental decision-making Environmental law
Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors (S.C. 28/2001) [2002] NGSC 25 (05 April 2002); (S.C. 28/2001) [1960] NGSC 1 (04 April 2002); Declaratory Relief Civil Remedies Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional Law Protected areas (general) Environmental decision-making Environmental law EL Index Transnational and international dispute resolution Public international lawThe court considered an action, where it was called upon to determine the seaward boundary of the Littoral States within the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The purpose was to calculate the revenue accruing to the Federation account from the natural resources derived.
The Federal State contended that the southern seaward boundary of each of the defendants’ states would be the low-water mark of the land surface akin to such State, alternatively, the seaward limit of inland waters within the State. The contrary argument was that the territory of each State was beyond the low-water mark and extended into the territorial water.
The court found that the southern boundaries of the littoral States are the sea. Thus, as a result, it makes them riparian owners. In terms of common law, as riparian owners the extent of their territory would be the low-water mark, alternatively the seaward limit of their internal waters.
The court found that none of the Territorial Waters Act, Sea Fisheries Act and Exclusive Economic Zone Act had extended the territory beyond southern boundary limit. Therefore, and due to the sea shore and foreshore belonging to the crown, the court held that the low-water mark forms the boundary of the land territory between the littoral States.
Plaintiff’s claim was successful.
 |
 |
 |