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
Water Resources Management Authority v Krystalline Salt Limited [2018] eKLR (Environment and Land Case 47 of 2015); (05 April 2018); 
EL Index Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Freshwater use Water and coasts Environmental law Role of state in relation to environment Actors in environmental law Environmental law Minerals, oil and gas Minerals and energy Environmental lawKensalt Limited v Water Resources Management Authority [2018] eKLR (PETITION (APPLICATION) NO. 8 OF 2016); (31 August 2018); Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law Use of coastal and marine areas Water and coasts Environmental law EL IndexThe two applicants were seeking an order for joinder in a substantive appeal by the petitioner. The court considered whether the applicants ought to be joined to the appeal as interested parties. The appeal dealt with the lawfulness of charges levied against the appellant and the applicants for the use of sea water.
In deciding the case, the court relied on the case of Francis Kariuki Muruatetu and Another v. Republic and Four Others which set out guiding principles when seeking to be joined to proceedings as an interested party. The rule stated that the party seeking to be enjoined must move the court through a formal application and must place sufficient grounds before the court namely: the personal interests that the party has in the matter; the prejudice that the interested party will suffer; and the relevance of the submissions the party seeks to rely on in the case.
In dismissing the application for joinder, the court held that the applicants expressed no interest in the matter during the lower courts. Furthermore, the court held that the applicants could bring their own application since there was no order of stay of proceedings in place. Lastly, it held that the applicants did not stand to suffer or incur any prejudice in the matter. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applications with costs.
 |
 |
 |