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
PHENOM LIMITED v NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [2005] eKLR (Tribunal Appeal Net/04/06/2005); (02 December 2005); 
EL Index Environmental damages Environmental remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil ProcedurePHENOM LIMITED v NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER [2005] eKLR (Tribunal Referral Net 04/06/2005); (02 December 2005); Administrative Action Administrative Law Environmental authorisation Environmental decision-making Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Urban planning Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law EL IndexThe court considered an appeal against the condition attached by the respondent, to its approval of a housing project.
The appellant intended to build a seven storey building, but the respondent restricted it to four. The appellant contended that the limitation placed on the number of storeys and refusal to allow construction for residential floors, below ground level, was unlawful, which had already been approved by the city council.
Upon request to the tribunal, residents of the area were enjoined to the appeal as interested parties, arguing that the appellant’s development did not respect the stipulated environment, and planning regulations, that permitted only a maximum of four storey buildings in Zone 4, where the proposed construction was located.
The tribunal considered whether the limitations placed on the construction were justified. It held that the respondent had the authority to impose conditions that it deemed necessary to prevent and/or reduce negative environmental impacts that might result from an activity, and therefore had the lawful authority to regulate the appellant’s activity.
Under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and the regulations made under it, the respondent’s authority superseded that of the city council and any action the Council may have taken regarding the proposed development. The tribunal found that the city council’s approval was not lawful. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
NAKUMATT HOLDINGS LIMITED v NATIONAL ENVIROMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER [2005] eKLR (Tribunal Referral Net 01/02/2005); (12 August 2005); Air quality Air and climate Environmental law Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public participation Human and environmental rights Environmental law EL IndexThe court considered an appeal against the first respondent’s approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Project Report, submitted by the second respondent, in support of its application for the development of a housing estate.
The appellant contended that the housing estate was located in an industrial area with high levels of air and noise pollution, among others, and that a full EIA study ought to have been conducted.
During the course of the trial, it became evident that the Appellant objected to this proposed development, due to its concern that the proposed development, would introduce a conflict between its commercial activities within its premises, and the use of neighboring property for residential purposes.
The tribunal observed that the purpose of the EIA licensing process as prescribed by the Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999 and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, Legal Notice No 101 of 2003 was to assess the likely significant impacts of a proposed project on the environment.
The tribunal found that the alleged serious health risks on account of the high levels of pollution in the area were not substantiated by credible evidence, and as such the first respondent was justified in rating approval. Further, the tribunal held that there was no evidence to show that this project would adversely impact on the environment in ways that could not be mitigated by the measures that had been proposed by the project proponent in the EIA project report.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Stanley K. Mosonik & others v Attorney General & 8 others [2005] eKLR (Misc Civil Appli 49 of 2002); (28 July 2005); Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Conduct of proceedings Civil Procedure African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples Human and environmental rights Environmental law Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Locus standi in environmental litigation Litigation of environmental issues Environmental law EL IndexThe court considered an application declaring that the applicants right to life had been contravened by forcible eviction, as well as their right to protection of the law.
The applicants averred that they had resided and carried on farming on the land from which they were evicted for 61 years. After the land had been degazetted for settlement by Gazette Notices, the applicants claimed that their subsequent eviction was an infringement of their constitutional rights.
The Applicants claimed to reside and possess the land in dispute but did not lay any credible foundation to that claim. The only document they placed before the court to support their claim was what was described as “The fact-finding Report of Mr Cheruiyot Kiplangat.” The said person was not known to this court and the court was not told what authority he had, nor his competence to make the report.
The court held that the report had no legal basis and was to be rejected. As the application was substantially based on the fact that the appellants had wrongly been evicted from the land, to which they purported to lay a stake, the court found that their reference had automatically failed, based on the finding that the fact-finding report they relied on had no legal authority.
Reference dismissed.
Margaret Wanjiku Kamau v John Njoroge & another [2005] eKLR (Civil Case 316 of 1998); (28 June 2005); EL Index Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law Urban planning Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law |
 |
 |