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
Patrick Musimba v National Land Commission & 4 others [2015] eKLR (Petition 613 of 2014); (05 June 2015); 
EL Index African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Declaratory Relief Civil Remedies Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawLedidi Ole Tauta & Others v Attorney General & 2 others [2015] eKLR (Constitutional Petition 47 of 2010); (15 April 2015); EL Index Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Declaratory Relief Civil Remedies African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawKen Kasing’a v Daniel Kiplagat Kirui & 5 others [2015] eKLR (Petition 50 of 2013); (04 November 2015); Attribution of Costs Costs Civil Remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Environmental damages Environmental remedies EL IndexThe petitioner argued that the first respondent violated his right to a clean and healthy environment, by leasing out property to the third respondent for the construction of a telecommunications base transmission mast.
Firstly, the court determined the jurisdiction of the court to decide on a dispute concerning the issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment License despite the existence of an avenue of redress at the National Environmental Tribunal (NET). The court noted that the dispute could was on one hand based on the issuance of the EIA license by NEMA but it was also based on the violation of the right to health. The court therefore relied on s 13 (3) of the Environment and Land Court Act and held that the court had the requisite jurisdiction.
Secondly, the court determined whether the construction of a telecommunications base transmission mast on property adjacent to that of the petitioner violated the petitioner’s right to a clean and healthy environment. The court noted that the third respondent had not obtained that license thus the mast was constructed illegally and that the 4th respondent had a duty to commence investigation and take necessary legal action.
It was further held that, where a procedure for the protection of the environment was provided for in law but was not followed a presumption would to be drawn that the project violated the right to a clean and healthy environment, or was one that had potential to harm the environment.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Parkire Stephen Munkasio & 14 others (suing on their own behalf and behalf of their families and all the members of the maasai community living on land reference no.8396(i.r 11977) situated in kedong) v Kedong Ranch Limited & 8 others [2 EL Index Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Declaratory Relief Civil Remedies African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Rationality Principles Administrative Law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawIn the Matter of the Mui Coal Basin Local Community [2015] eKLR (Constitutional Petition Nos 305 of 2012, 34 of 2013 & 12 of 2014(Formerly Nairobi Constitutional Petition 43 of 2014) (Consolidated)); (18 September 2015); EL Index Environmental damages Environmental remedies Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Energy Minerals and energy Environmental law
Vhembe Mineral Resources Stakeholders Forum and Others v MEC, Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (Limpopo Provincial Government) and Others (78690/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1043; (08 December 2015); EL Index Interim Interdict Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law
S v Mupawaenda (CRB 200/15) [2016] ZWHHC 40 (04 November 2015); EL Index Protected areas (general) Environmental decision-making Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawIn this case, the High Court considered a murder charge and whether the defence of private defence and/or the defence of property was sufficient to warrant an acquittal.
The accused was employed as a security guard by a private security company. While on duty he shot and killed an illegal diamond panner. Against the murder charge, the accused raised the defence of private defence and the defence of property. The facts were not disputed that the accused and his colleague were attacked by a mob of illegal panners who threatened to kill them. The accused fired a warning shot but the mob persisted until he fired the deadly shot which dispersed the mob.
The court held that the accused was lawfully employed to protect the employer’s assets from theft and entitled by law to protect himself. The court found that in this case a warning shot had been given and the life of the accused was in danger. The court held further that the action in self-defence was not disproportionate or unreasonable. Accordingly, the court found the accused not guilty and he was acquitted.
 |
 |
 |