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
African Centre for Rights And Governance (ACRAG) &3 others v Municipal Council of Naivasha [2017] eKLR (Petition 50 of 2012); (31 May 2017); 
EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Declaratory Relief Civil Remedies Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights Environmental duties Concepts and principles Environmental 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 lawKenya 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.
Elizabeth Kurer and Detlef Heir (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of aggrieved residents of Watamu within Kilifi County) v County Government of Kilifi & 4 others [2018] eKLR (Petition 23 of 2016); (19 April 2018); Frivolous, vexatious, nuisance proceedings Conduct of proceedings Civil Procedure Role of state in relation to environment Actors in environmental law Environmental law Pollution and waste management offences Criminal offences in environmental law Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Access to environmental information Human and environmental rights Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights EL IndexThe petitioners in this matter contented that since 1998, the fourth and fifth respondents had played excessively loud music at night thus causing the petitioners and other residents sleepless nights. The respondents operated an entertainment spot located near a residential area and learning institutions and whose main entertainment menu was the playing of very loud music. The petitioners alleged that the noise interfered with their peace and quiet enjoyment of their properties and violated their right to a clean and healthy environment.
In order to prove that the noise and vibration levels from the respondent’s restaurant were excessive, the petitioners used self-made instruments that were not approved by a relevant lead agency or any person appointed by the National Environmental Management Authority.
This was against the requirements of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act. Therefore, the petition had to fall, although the learned Judge noted that the petitioners had a noble claim.
 |
 |
 |