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
Ken 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.
In 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 lawMASLOW AGENCIES LTD v TOB COHEN [2006] eKLR (Civil Case 646 of 2006); (27 July 2006); Notice of Termination of Contract Termination of Contract Contract Law Air quality Air and climate Environmental law Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights Environmental damages Environmental remedies EL IndexThis was an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from developing the land until it obtained a positive environmental impact assessment, causing excessive noise and dust pollution from his property.
The applicant contended that the defendant was interfering with its right to a clean, safe and secure environment and, that the plaintiff’s tenants were unable to occupy the plaintiff’s premises due to nuisance and pollution on the defendant’s property.
The court determined whether the plaintiff had the necessary locus standi.
The court noted that non-compliance of statutory provisions or conditions made there were of a public nature and could have been dealt with by reporting to the Nairobi City Council officials,and the Commissioner of Lands. It was further noted that the grievances on non-compliance with provisions relating to environmental impact assessments should have been dealt with by the National Environmental Management Authority. For these reasons, the court held that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to institute the suit. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Charles Lekuyen Nabori & 9 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2008] eKLR (Petition 466 of 2006); (11 December 2008); EL Index Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Environmental damages Environmental remedies Sustainable development Concepts and principles Environmental law Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawEndere v Karen Roses Ltd (2006) 1 eKLR (E&L) (Civil Case 298 of 2005); (31 March 2006); EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Environmental damages Environmental remedies Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental lawPHENOM LIMITED v NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [2005] eKLR (Tribunal Appeal Net/04/06/2005); (02 December 2005); EL Index Environmental damages Environmental remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil ProcedureKenya Ports Authority v East African Power & Lighting Company Ltd [1982] eKLR (Civil Appeal 41 of 1981); (09 March 1982); Precautionary and preventive principles Concepts and principles Environmental law Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental law Marine pollution Waste and pollution Environmental law Environmental damages Environmental remedies EL IndexThe court considered an appeal, whereby the plaintiff was claiming pecuniary damages incurred for cleaning up an oil leak into the harbour, for which the defendant was allegedly responsible.
The defence pleaded that the suit was misconceived and that the alleged loss and damage were not recoverable in law. Further, that the plaintiff disclosed no cause of action and that the case ought to be dismissed. The plaintiff relied on two causes of action, the first in negligence and the second, in terms of the strict liability rule.
The high court held that the only damage proved to have been caused by the oil leak was to the sea water surrounding the harbour, and that the plaintiff did not own that water. Thus, the plaintiff had not suffered any damage to its property and further that in bringing oil to its land in the port area, the defendant was not making a non-natural use of the land.
On appeal, the court held that the plaintiff suffered no actual damage to any of its property as water was not the property of the plaintiff, and pecuniary loss arising out of purely precautionary measures taken to clean up pollution, which might cause damage to property, is not recoverable at common law. It held that the storage of oil on land by a person licensed to generate electricity there, the oil being essential for the production of electricity, did not amount to a non-natural user of the land.
Appeal dismissed.
Kenya Wildlife Service v Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited[2018] eKLR (Petition 11 of 2015); (27 April 2018); Role of state in relation to environment Actors in environmental law Environmental law Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna Environmental law Environmental damages Environmental remedies EL IndexThe matter dealt with a petition of appeal arising out of a dispute over the destruction of the respondent’s crops by wild animals that entered the respondent’s farm.
The court considered whether s3A(l) of the Wildlife Act, imposed liability on the appellant to compensate for loss or destruction of crop. The court held that s3A(l) imposed a duty on the appellant to protect the crops from destruction by wildlife and compensate for destruction.
The court considered whether there is a common law obligation under the principle in Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31 and the rule in Ryland v Fletcher [1866] LR 1Ex 265 on the appellant to compensate for damage or destruction caused by wildlife. The court found that neither were applicable to the present matter based on the facts of the case.
The court considered whether damage caused by migrating wildlife is an act of God. Consideration must be given to the question whether the event was reasonably foreseeable. Migration of wildlife is an annual occurrence thus, foreseeable and so not an act of God.
The court considered whether the government ought to be liable for destruction by wildlife. Factually, the appellant had the duty of control of the wildlife because of s3A of the Wildlife Act and so the court held that liability for the damage fell on the appellant.
Court of Appeal judgment upheld.
 |
 |
 |