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
NAROK COUNTY COUNCIL & another v NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTMANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) & another [2006] eKLR (Tribunal Appeal Net/o7 of 2006); (20 December 2006); 
EL Index Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Animal welfare and rights Flora and fauna Environmental law Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna 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.
PETER KINUTHIA MWANIKI & 2 others v PETER NJUGUNA GICHEHA & 3 others [2006] eKLR (Civil Case 313 of 2000); (05 June 2006); EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human RightsREPUBLIC v KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY & 2 others Ex-parte KABURU & SONS SHIP CONTRACTORS & another [2006] eKLR (Misc Civ Appli 606 of 2005); (02 June 2006); Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Waste management Waste and pollution Environmental law EL IndexThis was a ruling on a preliminary objection that disputed the jurisdiction of the court. The respondents argued that its discretionary powers were not amenable to judicial review.
This objection was raised in the course of a review of a decision of the respondent to cancel the applicants’ licences that gave them a right to carry out sludge and waste disposal at the port of Mombasa. The applicants sought an order to quash the respondent’s decision and a further order to prohibit the respondent from implementing and enforcing the purported cancellation of the licenses.
Having considered the competing arguments for and against the preliminary objection, the court found that the objection was challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The respondents argued that its discretionary powers were not amenable to judicial review. The court held in the contrary that the decision was administrative and therefore could be the subject of a judicial review. It was further held that the applicants were not barred from coming to that court for assistance when they had grievances with administrative matters.
The court found that the preliminary objection had no merit and dismissed the application with costs to the applicant.
 |
 |
 |