Environmental Case Law Index

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

No topics currently selected - please choose one from the list on the left.

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2

JAMES TOROTICH KISA & 3 others v CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI [2010] eKLR (Miscellaneous Civil Application 55 of 2008); (18 February 2010);

Judicial Review Appeals and reviews Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Conduct of proceedings Civil Procedure Land use Human exploitation of the environment Environmental law EL Index

This was a judicial review application against the decision of the respondent to approve the alteration of use of the suit land from residential to office premises. The applicants sought orders of certiorari quashing the decision and prohibition, prohibiting the user from further excavation and construction on the land as well mandamus to compel the respondents to exercise its statutory duty in ensuring no further excavation and construction is done.

The court found that applications for judicial review were brought in the name of the Republic, since a judicial review is a mechanic whereby the state checks on the excesses of its officers and public bodies in performance of their administrative duties. The court noted that the application was not brought in the name of the republic and held that the case was not properly instituted.

Additionally, it was found that all parties affected by the judicial review proceedings such as National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) were not served in accordance with Order 53 r 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which was fatal to the application. As such, although there was no evidence of compliance with s 59 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999 as well as regulation 17 of the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003 by NEMA and the user, court could not make any finding as to do so would amount to condemning NEMA unheard.

Accordingly, the application was struck out.
Relevance ranking: 7.624564

CEPHAS OSORO & 3 others v DAVID N. THUKU & another [2010] eKLR (Environmental & Land Case 434 of 2009); (01 January 2010);

Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Temporary Injunction Injuctions and interdicts Civil Remedies Environmental impact and risk assessment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Public interest in environment Environmental decision-making Environmental law Healthy environment Substantive rights Human Rights EL Index

The applicants sought orders of temporary injunction and injunction to restrain the respondents from using the suit property as a wedding ground or place of entertainment of wedding parties and to restrain the respondents from carrying out actions that constitute noise pollution within the meaning of the Environment and Management Co-ordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration) (Control) Regulations 2009 (Legal Notice No.6/2009).

The applicants contended that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted and notice of change of user was not served on the residents in accordance with the Physical Planning Act. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the applicants had no locus standi as the association was illegal.

The court found that the applicants, being neighbors to the suit property, were aggrieved by the respondents’ actions and had locus to bring the case.

The court noted that the respondents had no EIA license but only a letter of approval from NEMA that contained conditions which they had not complied with. The court also found that the publication of change of user was insufficient as it was done in newspapers of limited circulation and the residents were not personally served. Court further found that the respondents had not complied with Legal Notice No.6/2009.

Accordingly, the court granted the injunctions.
Relevance ranking: 7.624564