Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

1. Samson Lereya; 2. Ngamia Lemeiguran; 3. Joel Ole Saaya; 4. Shaolin Leriche Meiguran; 5. Clement Nashuru (Plaintiffs) versus The Honorable Attorney General (1st Defendant); The Minister for Environment and Natural Resources (2nd Defendant); National Environment Management Authority (3rd Defendant)

Country/Territory
Kenya
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jul 11, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Judge
Aluoch, J.
Kubo, B., P.
Mugo, M.
Reference number
Civil suit 115 of 2006
Language
English
Subject
Wild species & ecosystems, Legal questions
Keyword
Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Biodiversity
Abstract
The central prayer of this suit was the eradication of a weed called Prosopis Juliflora, which was said to be invasive, from a part of Baringo District in Rift Valley Province. The defendants objected to the suit, among others, on the ground that the suit was filed over twenty years after the Government of Kenya had introduced the weed. Therefore, the suit was time-barred. The counter-argument made by the plaintiffs was that the environmental harm subject matter of the suit was ongoing. It continued to spread at alarming rate, had completely overgrown the entire landscape and continued to decimate natural biodiversity in the affected areas. The court analyzed the statements of the defendants and concluded that they conceded that the weed in question was invasive and its effect on the environment was continuing. Under these circumstances the objection by the defendants was dismissed. Furthermore, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi. The Court held that the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (ECMA) conferred the right to a clean and healthy environment to every person in Kenya. According to ECMA a person that alleged that this entitlement was likely to be contravened in relation to him had the capacity to bring action notwithstanding that this person could not show that the defendant’s act was likely to cause him any personal loss or injury, provided that such action was not frivolous or an abuse of the court process. As there was no plea regarding frivolous or abusive action, the court held that the plaintiffs had locus standi. However, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to serve a mandatory notice on the Government, which was fatal to any proceedings against the Government. Therefore, the suit could not stand against the 1st and 2nd defendant.
Full text
COU-144017E.pdf

References

Cites

Convention on Biological Diversity

Treaty | Multilateral | Rio de Janeiro |

Keyword: Sustainable use, Subsidy/incentive, Policy/planning, Ecosystem preservation, Access and benefit sharing, Traditional rights/customary rights, Protected area, Management/conservation, Financing, Institution, Liability/compensation, Protection of habitats, Alien species, Biodiversity, EIA, Research, Monitoring, Genetic resources, Dispute settlement, Ex-situ conservation, Data collection/reporting, Technology transfer, Biotechnology, Education, Crops/grasses

Source: IUCN (ID: TRE-001148)