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
Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2014] eKLR (Petition 58 of 2014); (21 November 2014); 
EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawPeter Makau Musyoka & 19 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the Mui Coal Basin Local Community) v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Energy & 14 others [2014] eKLR (Constitutional Petition 305 of 2012); (17 March 2014); Abuse of Process Conduct of proceedings Civil Procedure Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental law EL IndexThe court determined the threshold for public participation required for the coal-mining project. The court noted that there was no litmus test for determining when a court could conclude that there was adequate public participation. However, the court found that it is necessary to consider the bona fides of the public actor, the nature of the subject matter, the length and quality of the engagement and the number of mechanisms used to reach as many people as possible. On consideration of these factors, the court held that the government complied with the requirement for public participation in the project.
Secondly, the court noted that the non-involvement of the Kitui County Government in the Coal mining project was explained by the fact that the County Government was not in existence at the time of the award of the Concessioning Tender.
Thirdly, the court found the apprehension of deprivation of property to be speculative as the Government had indicated that it would compensate and resettle the affected parties.
Fourthly, the court held that the petitioners could not invoke the court’s jurisdiction to question either the procedural propriety or substantive merits of the procurement process since they did not follow the procurement procedures.
Fifthly, the court found it unnecessary to determine the issue on violation of the right to information, since the Government had supplied a copy of the Benefits Sharing Agreement to all the parties. Finally, the court held that the petitioners failed to prove environmental harm.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
 |
 |
 |