Environmental Case Law Index

This was an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from cutting down trees, felling logs or dealing in whatever manner with the plaintiff’s land.

The plaintiff contended that the respondent had committed trespass and malicious damage to the property on his land. On the other hand, the defendant argued that it was not the registered owner of the land but had entered into an agreement with the government to harvest forest produce in government forests in exchange for royalties.

The court found that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the land and that the defendant lacked the capacity to question the validity of the plaintiff’s ownership. 

It was further held that the plaintiff had established the requirements for an injunction. The plaintiff established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success against the defendant. Further, that if the relief was not granted the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss as all the trees on his land would be cut down.  

Accordingly, the application succeeded with costs to the respondents. The court issued the injunction and directed the applicant to mark out the boundaries of his land so that the respondent would excluded from its operations. 

This was a review against the respondent’s decisions to set apart land on Funzi Island and grant registration titles to Pati Limited. The applicant prayed for prohibition and certiorari orders since the respondent made the decisions in excess of its jurisdiction and power. 

The applicant argued that the land in dispute was forest land, and that no allotment could have legally taken place on the land unless there was a declaration that it had ceased to be forest land. The court found that when the proceedings commenced, it was assumed that the land was trust land, and despite argument, the applicant failed to adduce enough evidence to prove that the land was forest land. The land was thus declared to be trust land.

Secondly on the applicant’s disputed locus standi, the court found that the applicant’s properties were separated by about 200 metres from the disputed property. Further, the court found that even if the land was forest land, only the authorities in the Ministry in charge of the forest lands had the capacity to defend it. Consequently, it was held that the applicants lacked the requisite locus standi.

Finally, the court found that the respondent complied with the requirements in the Trust Act and dismissed the orders prayed for.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

This matter determined whether the principles of granting an injunction should be applied differently in environmental litigation.

The applicants sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from mining and excavation activities which were likely to trigger environmental and health problems. The respondents argued that they were not mining but prospecting and had a license to do so.

The court determined that the applicants had the necessary locus standi by virtue of being persons entitled to a clean and healthy environment as per s3(2) of the Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA).

The court determined whether the grounds for the grant of an injunction were satisfied by the application. The court noted that breaches of the environmental statute must be looked at without the trappings of the law on injunctions but rather in line with the principles under s3 of the EMCA.

The court established that anybody who intends to mine or conduct prospecting activities is required to submit a project report and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as per s58 of the EMCA. It was further held that where the provision is not complied with, it is immaterial whether such person had a license. The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the act and declared the respondent’s activities illegal.

The injunction was granted since the environmental factors were not taken into account before the project commenced.

The 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. 

The court considered a petition whereby the petitioner sought an order of certiorari to quash a Gazette Notice declaring his land to be forest land. The petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with the original owner of the land by which the parties agreed to a down payment upon successful application to the land control board. The Petitioner took immediate possession and contracted to pay the balance of the purchase price after the maize season. The application was made and rejected due to the Ministry of Natural Resource’s interest in the land. Subsequently, the land control board met and the petitioner’s application was granted, however, the land was transferred to the government  and marked a forest.

The petitioner argued that during the dispute, its members were harassed and evicted from their farms, with their houses being torched. 

The court found that there was no doubt that the petitioner had entered into a sale agreement. Further, the control board acted in a manner to deny the petitioner the land. The court found that based on a letter received from the Commissioner of Land, there was a clear acknowledgment of foul play in the manner in which the government came to buy the land. Further, the government had deprived the petitioner of its right to land and subjected its members to poverty. In conclusion, the court held that the land was to be placed in the name of the petitioner as it was the rightful and lawful owner. 

This case concerned a constitutional petition in which the petitioners sought a declaration that the creation of a national reserve through the legal notice 86 of 2000 was unlawful. The court considered the effect of legal notice and whether it was published or degazetted in violation of the law. Lastly, the court considered whether the rights of the community were violated.

The court determined whether the notice was published without consultation and observed that consultations were held between the minister and the county council. The court then considered whether the former president’s alleged verbal revocation of the legal notice at a public rally was a lawful avenue for the revocation of a legal notice. The court held that the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act provided mechanisms on how to withdraw a declaration and as a result, the president had no power to revoke any declaration. 

On this basis, the court held that the claim by the petitioners that the land in question was degazetted to be available for their use could not be sustained. In conclusion, the court held that the petitioners failed to show how their rights were violated and therefore could not rely on the new constitution and the act to claim the infringement of their rights. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition without an order of costs.

This was an appeal against the decision of a magistrate to dismiss an application challenging the jurisdiction of that court to determine matters covered under the Wildlife Conservation Act. The respondent who was attacked by a baboon, commenced proceedings, claiming damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 

The High Court observed that s 25 of the act limits the claims to be made by virtue of the list contained in the third schedule. The court held that an attack by a baboon did not fall under section 25 of the Act, when read with the schedule. The court further pointed out that section 25 did not remove the jurisdiction of other courts, but merely introduced an easy way for poor farmers to claim compensation for the destruction of their crops and livestock. The court held that the magistrate was empowered to hear the matter. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs.  

In this case the appellant challenged the first respondent’s decision to grant the second and third respondents an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license for the construction of a church and related facilities. The second and third respondents raised an objection to the tribunal’s right to hear the matter on the ground that the appeal had been filed outside the timelines set out in the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999 (EMCA) as well as the National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules, 2003

The main issue for the tribunal’s consideration was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which had been filed out of time. The tribunal relied on the rule established in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited that jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given. It also relied on s129(1) of the EMCA and held that the act was clear that an appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days but the evidence revealed that the appellants had filed their appeal after 78 days.

Accordingly, the tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter, as the appeal was filed out of time and the appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal considered an appeal against the approval and issuance of a license for the construction of human waste sewage ponds in a residential area. The appellants argued the following: that they, had not been consulted; that the project would cause significant environmental damage; that the project lacked adequate mitigation measures; and that the respondents did not follow the relevant statutory provisions. The appellants sought cancellation of the license; an order to stop construction of the project; restitution, compensation as well as a guarantee of non- repetition; and environmental restoration. The respondents insisted that they had satisfied the relevant provisions and urged the tribunal to dismiss the appeal with costs.

The main issue for the tribunal’s consideration was whether there was effective public participation. It found that the respondents fell short of the requirement to issue two public notices. The tribunal also found that the respondents failed to demonstrate that they held three public meetings and that they made radio-announcements. It concluded therefor that public participation was not carried out effectively.

The tribunal went on to consider whether the project adhered to the Environment Management and Coordination (Water Quality) Regulations 2006; the Environment Management and Coordination (Wetlands, River Banks, Lake Shores and Sea Shore Management) Regulations 2009; and the Environmental Management and Co-Ordination (Air Quality) Regulations 2014. It found that the respondents failed to adhere to any of these. Accordingly, the tribunal upheld the appeal. 

This application was brought pursuant to the provisions of Rule 19 of the National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules, 2003; to invoke the powers of the tribunal to strike out the respondent’s reply for disobedience of the tribunal’s order. The applicants argued that the 2nd respondent had disobeyed a stop order to stop all activities relating to the construction of 2 residential homes. They contended that this amounted to an abuse of due process of the tribunal. 

The respondents argued that the application was defective and bad in law. 

The court determined whether the actions of the 2nd respondent were illegal and unlawful. The court found that a stop order was issued and that the 2nd respondent had temporarily complied with the stop order until it decided to proceed with the development. However, the court held that the applicants could not invoke the tribunal’s powers despite the disobedience, mainly because the stop order was not granted upon an application for directions made under part V of the National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules. 

Further, it became apparent that the advocate appearing for the applicants had deposed to the affidavit in support of the application. The court found that an advocate should not depose to an affidavit in a matter which he is appearing. Further, that he should not depose to an affidavit on information supplied by his client when his client is available to swear on his own. The court thereby struck the affidavit out, and as a result the application could not stand on its own. 

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The court considered an application for review of the Appellate Court’s decision to decline to grant certification to appeal. The applicant argued that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the matters, in respect of which the applicant sought a decision, were substantial points of law which were of general public importance and transcended the circumstances of the particular case.

The court held that an applicant seeking certification “must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed on appeal is one the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the particular case” and if the applicant’s appeal is based on a point of law, he “must demonstrate that such point is a substantial one, the determination of which will have a significant bearing on the public interest.” 

In the present case, the court found that the decisions of the lower courts were based on each of those court’s interpretation of the provisions of the private transportation and storage agreement between Triton Petroleum Company Limited (Triton) and the Respondent and the collateral financing agreement between Triton and the applicant. These were not issues of general public importance which transcended the circumstances of the particular case.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application.