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
Joseph Leboo & 2 others v Director Kenya Forest Services & another [2013] eKLR (Environment and Land 273 of 2013); (01 October 2013); 
Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Sustainable development Concepts and principles Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law EL IndexThis was an application for an injunction order by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from harvesting trees without consulting and involving the community. The court had to decide on the following: whether a community that was a beneficiary of a forest had capacity to commence proceedings against the illegal and irregular harvesting of timber and fuel wood materials from the forest; whether public participation was mandatory in the management of forests; and whether the Director of Kenya Forest Service (KFS), the first defendant, could be sued in their capacity as a director.
The court held that there were no provisions in law which barred any suit against the first defendant in that capacity. The court observed that the community had an interest in the preservation and sustainable use of the forest. As such, public participation was an important component of environmental management as enshrined in the constitution. However, the court pointed out that there was no public participation that was demonstrated by the respondents. On the lack of a management plan by the KFS, the court held that it was difficult to know when a tree was planted or harvested, thus creating difficulty to prove which trees were to be cut. The court held that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the applicants because environmental interests far-outweighed private interests.
Accordingly, the court ordered the respondents to stop harvesting trees, pending the hearing of the suit.
Republic v National Environment Tribunal & 2 others Ex-parte Abdulhafidh Sheikh Ahmed Zubeidi [2013] eKLR (Miscellaneous Civil Application 155 of 2012); (02 August 2013); Procedural Fairness Justice and fairness Civil Procedure Sustainable development Concepts and principles Environmental law Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law EL IndexThe matter dealt with the issue of jurisdiction arising out of a dispute regarding the development of residential flats by the ex parte applicant.
The court considered whether the National Environment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine Tribunal Appeal No. 74 of 2011. Under section 129(1) of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, a person who did not participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment study process for the development, in the process of approval or complaint cannot be said to have been an aggrieved by the process which led to the issuance of the licence as no decision could be said to have been made against him. If the tribunal purports to entertain such an appeal under the aforesaid section, the tribunal would be acting ultra vires its authority, hence its decision would be liable to be quashed.
In this case, it was clear that the appeal in issue did not fall within section 129(1) since the second respondent was not a participant in the licensing process. It followed that the limitation period provided under section 129(1) did not apply to the second respondent since, in the court’s view, that limitation only applied to a person appealing pursuant to section 129(1).
There was no evidence that the second respondent was barred from appealing by any other provision in the act or regulations. Accordingly, the court found that the second respondent was entitled under section 129(2) to appeal against the decision of the authority.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed.
Mtunzini Conservancy v Tronox KZN Sands (Pty) Ltd and Another (10629/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 1; (08 January 2013); EL Index Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental law Wildlife (fauna) Flora and fauna Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawThe case concerned a dispute between the applicant, a non-profit company involved in the promotion of a wildlife conservancy and the first respondent, a mining business within the area of jurisdiction of the second respondent. The applicant invoked its entitlement in public interest to apply for an interdict restraining the first respondent from making any development on any portion of the concerned properties as defined in s 1 and s 38(3), of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning and Development Act No. 6 of 2008 (KZNPD).
The applicant argued that the first respondent was required to apply for its proposed development but the applicant contended that it had not yet obtained such authorisation. The first respondent contended that it had been granted approval for mining authorisations in March 1998, in terms of the then applicable Minerals Act No. 50 of 199. The first respondent argued that mining authorisations approved and granted under the Minerals Act entailed that no further authorisations were required where a mining right subsisted.
The court pointed out that mining authorisations were subject only to the provisions of the Minerals Act and there was no provision similar to that in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 28 of 2002. The court found that the concerned properties were not inside a municipal area and were never the subject of any zoning controls when mining authorisation was granted. On the basis of this alone, no further authorisations were required under any other legislation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.
Escarpment Environment Protection Group and Another v Department of Water Affairs and Others, In Re; Escarpment Environment Protection Group and Another v Department of Water Affairs and Others, In Re; Escarpment Environment Protection Group and Another v EL Index Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law Administrative Review Administrative Law Constitutional Supremacy Constitutional Law
Lafarge Cement Zambia Limited PLC v Sinkamba (Citizens for a Better Environment) (Appeal No.169/2009) [2013] ZMSC 31 (26 November 2013); EL Index Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Powers of The Attorney-General Powers of certain actors Constitutional Law
Zeraeua Traditional Authority v Mathe and Others (A 169/2013) [2013] NAHCMD 163 (13 June 2013); EL Index Interim Interdict Injunctions and interdicts Civil Remedies African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional LawThe court considered an urgent application for spoliation orders (common law remedy) against the first to eleventh respondents or alternatively, an eviction order against them.
The thirteenth respondent purchased three farms which were adjacent to land which was incorporated in a communal area falling under the jurisdiction of the first applicant, a traditional authority. These farms were intended to be incorporated into the communal land falling under the applicant’s jurisdiction. The Government of Namibia initiated the process of incorporating these farms into the communal area under the first applicant through a notice published in the Government Gazette pursuant to the provisions of the Communal Land Reform Act 5 of 2002.
The issue facing the court was whether the first to eleventh respondents had the prerogative to occupy the farms with their cattle grazing on them, without authority to do so. The respondents argued that the applicant lacked locus standi (capacity) to bring the application since the land had not yet been incorporated into the communal area by way of notice in the Government Gazette, as required by the act, thus the applicant did not have jurisdiction over the land.
The application for spoliation was refused because the applicant could not show deprivation of possession by reason of the respondents’ occupation which predates its possession and control. Thus, the court found that the respondents could not establish any right to be on the farms.
The eviction order was granted with costs.
 |
 |
 |