Professor Wangari Maathai (Coordinator, Green Belt Movement) (Plaintiff) v. Kenya Times Media Trust Ltd. (Respondent) Country/Territory Kenya Type of court National - higher court Date Dec 11, 1989 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of Kenya at Nairobi Judge Dugdale, N. Reference number Civil Suit No. 5403 of 1989 Language English Subject Environment gen., Wild species & ecosystems, Legal questions Keyword Protected area Access-to-justice Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Abstract The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from constructing a proposed complex in a recreational park in central Nairobi. The plaintiff was coordinator of the Green Belt Movement, an environmental NGO, but sued on her own behalf. The defendant objected for lack of locus standi. The court held that the plaintiff had no locus standi. Even though the plaintiff alleged that there were breaches of Government or Local Government Laws, it was not alleged that the plaintiff was able or has any right to bring an action in respect of these alleged breaches of law. The court was of the view that there was no allegation of damage or anticipated damage or injury. In particular it was not alleged that the Defendant Company was in breach of any rights, public or private in relation to the plaintiff nor had the company caused damage to her nor did she anticipate any damage or injury. It was well established that only the Attorney General could sue on behalf of the public but in any event the plaintiff did not wish to bring an action on behalf of anyone else. In the plaint there was no allegation that the plaintiff had a right of action against the defendant company. The plaintiff stated that it was strengthening her standing before the court because of the subject matter of the suit and she adopted what she said had been a suggestion that the plaint may have been brought on moral or social grounds. The plaintiff had strong views that it was preferable if the building of the complex never took place in the interests of many people who had not been directly consulted. This did not provide sufficient interest for the plaintiff herself. The Court found that the plaintiff had no right of action against the Defendant Company and hence she had no locus standi. Full text Jud.Dec.Nat.pre.pdf Available in UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law and Institutions in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 15