SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Shah & 3 others v National Environment Management Authority & another (Tribunal Appeal 29 of 2022) [2024] KENET 339 (KLR) (19 February 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KENET 339 (KLR) KENET
Read PDF
Court
KENET
Case number
339
Citation
[2024] KENET 339 (KLR)
Decided
19 February 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEnvironmental DisputePostureAppeal from a Tribunal decisionCoramEMMANUEL MUMIA, Winnie Tsuma, DUNCAN KURIA, RONALD ALLAMANO
Holding

The Appellants' Notice of Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellants challenged the National Environment Management Authority's (NEMA) issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license to a property developer for a 5-level residential apartment building.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient public participation before issuing the impugned EIA license.
  2. Whether the Appellants' concerns about physical dangers to their properties were considered.

Reasoning

The court found that the issuance of the EIA license was not in compliance with prescribed statutory provisions on public participation, and thus lacked sufficient public participation.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Each party bears their own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003
  • Article 10(2)(a) of the Constitution
  • Article 69(1)(d) of the Constitution
Cases cited (2)
  • Law Society of Kenya vs Attorney General & 3 others; Katiba Institute & 6 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2023] KEELC 20583 (KLR) (12 October 2023) (Interim Judgment)
  • Mohamed Ali Baadi and Others vs Attorney General & 11 Others [2018] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case