Connect with us

News & Analysis

The International and Kenyan Legal Framework for Corporate Environmental Compliance



By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya)*

The legal framework for corporate environmental compliance includes both international and national legal frameworks. The international framework on corporate environmental compliance is based on a number of treaties, standards and principles aimed at facilitating enforcement and compliance with environmental laws and regulations. While such treaties, principles and standards generally bind states, they are directly applicable to corporations since a state can control the activities of a corporation within its jurisdiction in compliance with its requirements under international law. The significant international framework (soft and hardlaw) on Environmental compliance includes principles developed in various significant places namely Stockholm, Rio 1992, Johannesburg, Kyoto, Paris, Glasgow and Espoo.

The 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment contains provisions on compensation for damage to victims of environmental liability and requires member states to adopt laws that provide for liability and compensation to victims of environmental damage such as pollution. This has been captured in Kenya under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act which imposes both civil and criminal liability for environmental damage. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 captures several principles aimed at protecting the integrity of the global environment and developmental system. These include sustainable development, public participation, inter and intra generational equity, precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), was signed by 154 states at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. It established an international environmental treaty to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, including the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The Agreement aimed at strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change in the context of sustainable development. The Agreement contains provisions aimed at holding the rise in global temperature levels and controlling green-house gas emissions.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed in 1987 and entered into force in 1989 is a global agreement to protect the Earth‘s ozone layer by phasing out the chemicals that deplete it, a plan that includes both the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances. It sets limits on the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related substances that may lead to the depletion of the ozone layer. The Protocol is believed to have successfully met its objectives thus far as it continues to safeguard the ozone layer today.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was the first convention of any kind to be signed by every country involved, taking effect in 1988 and reaching universal ratification in 2009. The Vienna Convention obligates the Parties to take appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and of those protocols in force to which they are party to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005, currently with 192 Parties. The Kyoto protocol was the first agreement between nations to mandate country-by-country reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto emerged from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was signed by nearly all nations at the 1992 Earth Summit. The Kyoto Protocol operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing industrialized countries and economies in transition to limit and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets, whereas the Convention itself only asks those countries to adopt policies and measures on mitigation and to report periodically.

Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol adopted by decision 1/CMP.8 in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol, at the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) held in Doha, Qatar, on 8 December 2012. As of 28 October 2020, 147 Parties had deposited their instrument of acceptance, therefore, the threshold for entry into force of the Doha Amendment had been met. The Amendment adds new emission reduction targets for Second Commitment Period (2012-2020) for participating countries.

Paris Climate Accord, 2015 also known as the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change, adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) was recently held in Glasgow from 1st to 12thNovember 2021. The COP26 summit brought parties together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Some of the commitments emerging from COP26 that are relevant to corporate environmental compliance include the pledge to quit coal, agreement to transition to zero emission vehicles and promise to end deforestation by 2030.

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (The Espoo (EIA) Convention) which was adopted in Espoo, Finland in 1991 and entered into force on 10 September 1997 sets out the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification has the objective to Combat Desertification is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the framework of an integrated approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas.

Lastly, ISO 14000 entails a number of standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization to help organizations take a proactive approach to managing environmental issues. The standards challenge organizations to undertake a number of activities related to environmental governance which include taking stock of their impacts on the environment, establishing objectives and targets towards environmental management, committing to effective and reliable solutions such as prevention pollution and taking personal responsibility for conduct related to the environment. The existence of such standards is important since it allows organizations to gauge their environmental efforts against the generally accepted international criteria.

National Legal Framework for Corporate Environmental Compliance

The national legal framework for corporate environmental compliance include the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 which, inter alia, accords every person the right to a clean and healthy environment. The right includes the entitlement to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through measures contemplated in article 69; and to have obligations relating to the environment fulfilled under Article 70. These Constitutional provisions bind both the state and every person. Corporations thus have environmental obligations under the Constitution since they are artificial persons. Breach of these obligations could result in enforcement of environmental rights against the corporation and sanctions such as compensation for any victim of a violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 70 (2) (c) of the Constitution.

Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA), 1999 is the key law in Kenya providing for the establishment of an appropriate legal and institutional framework for the management of the environment. The Act entitles every person to a clean and healthy environment and requires every person to cooperate with state organs to protect and conserve the environment and to ensure the ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources. EMCA also stipulates several measures for protection and conservation of the environmental subsectors including rivers, lakes, seas, wetlands, mountain areas, forests, biological resource and the ozone layer.

These provisions of EMCA are binding both the state and individuals and their violation could result in commission of environmental offences set out under the Act. When these offences are committed by a body corporate, the body corporate and every director or officer of the body corporate who had knowledge of the commission of the offence and who did not exercise due diligence, efficiency and economy to ensure compliance with this Act, shall be guilty of an offence (emphasis added).  To aid in environmental protection and conservation, the Act lists several environmental management tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA), Environmental Audits and Monitoring (emphasis added).

The Companies Act, 2015 calls upon directors while discharging the duty to promote the success of a company to have regard to the impact of the operations of the company on the community and the environment. The Act further mandates directors while preparing their reports to include information about environmental matters and take into account the impact of the business of the company on the environment. Climate Change Act, 2016 provides a regulatory framework for enhanced response to climate change and measures and mechanisms aimed at achieving low carbon climate development.

The Climate Change Act applies in all sectors of the economy and requires measures to be taken towards mainstreaming climate change responses in development planning, providing incentives and obligations for private sector contribution in achieving low carbon climate development and promotion of low carbon technologies. It also imposes climate change duties upon private entities which may also be required to prepare reports on the status of performance of such obligations. The Act empowers the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to monitor, investigate and report whether public and private entities are in compliance with their duties under the Act. Corporates need to bear in mind the provisions of the Climate Change Act in carrying out their activities since it is relevant to corporate environmental compliance.

The Water Act, 2016 is the Act of Parliament that provides for the regulation, management and development of water resources. It enshrines the right to clean and healthy water and contains provisions that seek to curb contamination and pollution of water sources and establishes institutions to enforce the Act. Despite enactment of the Act, there are still many cases of pollution of water bodies some which are perpetrated by corporations through discharge of untreated wastes. Enforcement and compliance with the Act is necessary in attainment of the right to clean and healthy water. The Energy Act 2019 requires Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) to work with the relevant statutory authorities to formulate, enforce and review environmental, health, safety and quality standards for the upstream petroleum sector.

In addition to the Statutes, corporate environmental compliance is provided for under the respective sectoral regulations in Kenya. For instance, the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 provides for a system governing the Environmental Impact Assessment process and environmental audits. The Air Quality Regulations 2014 provide for prevention, control and abatement of air pollution to ensure clean and healthy ambient air and establishment of emission standards for various sources including industries as outlined in EMCA. The Water Quality Regulations 2006 provides for the right to clean and healthy water and obligates every person to refrain from acts and omission that may cause water pollution. The Waste Management Regulations 2006 provide a system to govern management of wastes including industrial and hazardous wastes.

*This is article is an extract from an article by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD Muigua, K., “Providing Legal Advice on Corporate Environmental Compliance in Kenya,” Available at: Dr. Kariuki Muigua is Kenya’s foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized as one of the leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts by the Chambers Global Guide 2021 and nominated as ADR Practitioner of the Year (Nairobi Legal Awards) 2021. 


Climate Change Act, No. 11 of 2016, Government Printer, Nairobi.

Companies Act, No. 17 of 2015, Government Printer, Nairobi.

Constitution of Kenya 2010, Government Printer, Nairobi.

COP23, Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol (2012)‘ <> (Accessed 25/11/2021).

COP26, UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) at the SEC – Glasgow 2021‘ (UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) at the SEC – Glasgow 2021) <> accessed 17 January 2021.

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm, 16 June 1972, available at (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Environmental Management and Co-Ordination Act (EMCA), No. 8 of 1999, Government Printer, Nairobi.

Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 Legal Notice No. 101 (June 13, 2003),

Environment Management and Co-ordination (Air Quality) Regulations, available at (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Environment Management and Co-ordination Water Quality Regulations, 2006 Legal Notice No. 120 (September 4, 2006).

Environmental Management: The ISO 14000 family of International Standards, available at (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Montreal Protocol and (London Amendment) on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer, 1522 UNTS 3; 26 ILM 1550 (1987).

Ozone Secretariat, ‘The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,’ Available at:
<> (accessed 25/11/2021).

The Paris Agreement, United Nations, 2015, available at convention/application/pdf/english_paris _agreement.pdf (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

UN General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 20 January 1994, A/RES/48/189.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1994),

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration 1992, Available (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Water Act, No. 43 of 2016, Government Printer, Nairobi.

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal




Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants  further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands.  He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Court of Appeal Upholds Eviction of Radcliffes from Karen Land




Adrian Radcliffe, the Expatriate Squatter, Evicted from Karen Property by Innocent Purchaser for Value

The Court of Appeal has stayed the decision of the Environment and Land Court purporting to reinstate Adrian Radcliffe into possession of the 5.7 Acre Karen Land by Kena Properties Ltd after eviction by the lawful owners in February 2022. Adrian Radcliffe who was evicted by Kena Properties Ltd, the innocent purchaser of the Land for value.

Before his eviction, Mr. Radcliffe had been living on the land as a squatter expatriate for 33 years without paying any rent. Since he moved into the property as a tenant, he only paid deposit for the land in August 1989 despite corresponding severally with the owner of the land. His attempt to acquire the land by adverse possession claim filed in 2005 was dismissed by Court in 2011 on the basis that he has engaged with the owner of the land July 1997 and agreed to buy the land which he failed to do. The High Court [Justice Kalpana Rawal as she then was] concluded that:

“His [Mr. Adrian Radcliffe] averments that he did not have any idea of the whereabouts of the Defendant and that he could possibly be not alive, were not only very sad but mala fide in view of the correspondence on record addressed by him to the Defendant’s wife. I would thus find that the averments made by him to the contrary are untrue looking to the facts of this case.”

On 10th March 2022, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe and Family purported to obtain court orders for reinstatement into the land. However, the Court of Appeal issued an interim stay of execution of the said orders. The Court of Appeal has now granted the application of Kena Properties Ltd and stayed the execution of the Environment and Land Court Order pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.

The Court also stayed the proceedings at the Environment and Land Court on the matter during the pendency of the Appeal. In effect, the eviction orders issued by the Chief Magistrate Court for eviction of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe in favour of Kena Properties as the purchaser of the property for value were upheld and the company now enjoys unfettered ownership and possession of the suit property until the conclusion of the Appeal.

The Court of Appeal in granting the orders sought by Kena Properties Ltd concurred with Kena Properties Ltd that as the property owner it had an arguable appeal with a high probability of success which would be rendered nugatory if Adrian Radcliffe a trespasser was to resume his unlawful possession of the suit property, erect structures thereon, recklessly use or abuse the said suit property as he deems fit. In any case, that is bound to fundamentally alter the state of the suit property and render it unusable by Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner.

At the same time, the Appellate Court rubbished the argument of Adrian Radcliffe in opposition to the application for stay that he has been in occupation of the suit property for more than 30 years and that he and his family were unlawfully evicted from the suit property on 4th February, 2022. The Court also rejected Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties Ltd has no valid title to the suit property and held that as the purchaser, the company was entitled to enjoy ownership and possession of their property during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court dismissed claims of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe that Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner acquired title to the suit property illegally and unprocedurally finding to the contrary. Further, it rejected Adrian Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties as the purchaser cannot evict a legal occupier of a property putting paid to the claim that he was a legal occupier at the time of eviction.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe cannot claim to be the legal occupier of the property having attempted to acquire it by adverse possession before the High Court thwarted his fraudulent scheme on 28th February 2011. Mr. Radcliffe did not appeal the 2011 High Court decision meaning it is still the law that he is not the owner of the land nor the legal occupier of the land having attempted to adversely acquire against the interests of the lawful owner who sold it to Kena Properties.

Mr. Adrian Radcliffe is a well-to-do Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) UNICEF consultant and former UN employee (who has been earning hefty House Allowance). Many have wondered why he has been defaulting in paying rent for 33 years on the prime plot of land in Karen while living large and taking his kids to most expensive schools in Kenya. No question, a local Kenyan could never have gotten away with such selfish impunity.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Review: Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1




The Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Volume 9, Issue No. 1, which is edited by and published by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD is out and stays true to the reputation of the journal in providing a platform for scholarly debate on thematic areas in the fields of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development. The current issue published in September 2022 covers diverse topics including Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in Africa; National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya; Protection of Cultural Heritage During War; The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya; Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya; Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation; Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World; Status of Participation of Women in Mediation; Business of Climate Change and Critical Analysis of World Trade Organization’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment.

Dr. Wilfred A. Mutubwa and Eunice Njeri Ng’ang’a in “Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in an Integrating Africa: An Appraisal of the Role of Regional Arbitration Centres” explore the nature of disputes in the realm of oil and gas in Africa taking a look into the recent continental and sub-regional developments in a bid to establish regional integration. Additionally, it tests the limits of intra-African trade and dispute resolution and the imperatives for the African regional courts and arbitration centres. In “National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua discusses the role played by the National Environment Tribunal (NET) in promoting access to justice and enhancing the principles of sustainable development in Kenya. The paper also highlights challenges facing the tribunal and proposes recommendations towards enhancing the effectiveness of the tribunal.

Dr. Kenneth Wyne Mutuma in “Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of War: A Case for History,” argues that cultural heritage is at the heart of human existence and its preservation even in times of war is sacrosanct. It concludes that it is thus critical for states to take positive and tangible steps to ensure environmental conservation and protection during war within the ambit of the existing international legal framework. In “The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya,” Jack Shivugu critically evaluates the role of water in the attainment of sustainable development in Kenya and argues water plays a critical role in the attainment of the sustainable development goals both in Kenya and at the global stage. The paper interrogates some of the water and Sustainable Development concerns in Kenya including water pollution, water scarcity and climate change and suggests practical ways to enhance the role of water in the Sustainable Development agenda.

Dr. Paul Ogendi in “Collective Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya,” reflects on property rights in relation to human biological materials obtained from research participants participating in genomic research. He argues that property rights are crucial in genomic research because they can help avoid exploitation or abuse of such precious material by researchers. In “Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua notes that Wetlands have a vital role in not just delivering ecological services to meet human needs, but also in biodiversity conservation. Wetlands are vital habitat sites for many species and a source of water, both of which contribute to biodiversity protection. The paper examines the role of wetlands in biodiversity conservation and how these wetland resources might be managed to improve biodiversity conservation.

Oseko Louis D. Obure in “Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World,” preponderance of disputes between States or States and Investors created need for a robust, effective, and efficient mechanisms not only for the resolution of these disputes but also their prevention. He notes that developing states lead in being parties to Investor-State Disputes (ISD) particularly as respondents. He proceeds to conceptualize and problematize investor-state disputes resolution in a fast-paced world. Lilian N.S. Kong’ani and Dr. Kariuki Muigua in “Status of Participation of Women in Mediation: A case Study of Development Project Conflict in Olkaria IV, Kenya” review the status of participation of women in mediation to resolve conflicts between KenGen and the community. The paper demonstrates a need for further democratization of the mediation processes to cater for more participation of women to enhance the mediation results and offer more sustainable resolutions.

Felix Otieno Odhiambo and Melinda Lorenda Mueni in “The Business of Climate Change: An Analysis of Carbon Trading in Kenya analyses the business of carbon trading in the context of Kenya’s legal framework. The article examines the legal framework that underpins climate change into the Kenyan legal system and provides an exposition of the concept of carbon trading and its various forms. Michael Okello, in “Critical Analysis of World Trade Organisation’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment: Prospects, Challenges and Emerging Trends in the 21st Century,” highlights the rationale behind MFN treatment and also restates the vision of multilateral trade to achieve equitable and special interventions with respect to trade in goods, services and trade related intellectual property rights in the affected states.

Continue Reading