Connect with us

News & Analysis

Corporate Civil and Criminal Liability for Environmental Non-Compliance in Kenya



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

Civil liability against corporations for environmental breaches occurs in the form of compensation and damages aimed at bringing the property or person affected by such acts as far as possible to the condition they were before the breaches occurred. Civil remedies for environmental protection can be classified according to their intended function which could be preventive, compensatory, reparatory or natural restitution. In addition to enshrining the right to clean and healthy environment, the Constitution sets out obligations in respect of the environment. Breach of these obligations may result in enforcement of environmental rights under article 70 of the Constitution which empowers the Environment and Land Court to grant civil remedies such as compensation to the victim or orders of injunction to prevent, stop or discontinue any act or omission that is harmful to the environment.

In addition to these remedies, EMCA provides for environmental restoration orders, conservation orders, and easements as part of civil remedies for environmental breaches. Consequently, corporations in Kenya found liable for environmental breaches have been imposed with civil consequences. For instance, in John Mutungu Waititu –vs- China Wuyi (Kenya) Co. Limited (2018) eKLR, the Respondent had leased the Appellant’s land for a period of one year, with the purpose of excavating murram. After excavating the murram, the Respondent failed to push back the top soil in order to make the ground level and leave the ground the way they had found it. This in turn left the land vulnerable and prone to grave environmental degradation. The Court found the Respondent liable and imposed civil remedies including; nominal damages of Kshs. 25,000 and a Restoration order directing the Respondent move to the Appellant’s land and ensure that the same is restored to sound environmental standards not harmful to the environment and to the area residents and animals.

Civil liability for environmental breaches by corporations follows common law principles such as the strict liability rule. The rule was laid down in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher which imposes strict liability on the owner of land for damage caused by the escape of substances to his or her neighbour’s land. Courts in Kenya have applied the strict liability rule and imposed civil liability on corporations for actions that have resulted in damage to the adjacent lands. In Esther Wanjiru Mwangi & 3 Others vs Xinghui International (K) Limited, the defendant dumped large quantities of lead wastes on a road adjoining the Plaintiffs’ land and as a consequence, the hazardous wastes negatively affected the Plaintiff’s crops and animals.

The plaintiffs lost three cows due to indigestion of the poisonous waste material and argued that continued dumping and staying on site of the waste posed real danger to their health as well as to their animals and crops. The court found the Defendant liable for negligence as established in Rylands –vs-Fletcher and granted several civil remedies in favour of the Plaintiffs including Kshs. 270,000/= being the value of the dead cows, an order directing the defendant to remove the dumped lead contaminated soil and waste on the road between its land and the Plaintiffs’ parcels and a mandatory injunction restraining the Defendant from dumping any contaminated waste from its factory to the Plaintiff’s land parcels.

Corporations therefore have to guard against instances of environmental damage since their actions can give rise to civil liability. It is clear that the Courts in Kenya readily apply the Sustainable Development “Polluter Pays Principle” which provides that the polluter bears the expenses of carrying out pollution prevention measures or paying for damage caused by pollution. As a principle of equity, it aims at introducing environmental costs in economic decision making in order to achieve sustainable development. This principle has been enforced by courts in Kenya by compelling corporations to undertake environmental restoration orders and pay damages for environmental pollution and take responsibility for their acts and omissions that affect the environment.

In addition to civil liability, EMCA imposes environmental criminal liability by outlining several environmental offences which including offences related to inspection, offences related to Environmental Impact Assessment, offences related to records and standards and offences related to and also prescribes penalties for these offences. Further, the Act also empowers environmental inspectors appointed under the Act, subject to the Constitution and section 29 of the Office of the Director of Prosecution Act, to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before a court of competent jurisdiction (other than a court martial) in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by that person under EMCA.

The Act provides that, when an offence is committed by a body corporate, the body Corporate and every director or officer who had knowledge of the commission of the offence and who did not exercise due diligence, efficiency and economy to ensure compliance with the Act shall be guilty of an offence (emphasis added). Thus, where an Environmental Impact Assessment is required, a corporation should ensure that it is prepared in accordance with EMCA and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003. Where an environmental audit is required, the corporation should conduct it as provided by EMCA and the regulations. Further, corporations in the manufacturing sector should comply with requirements on hazardous wastes and chemicals in handling wastes from their industries.

Environmental compliance is required by corporate organizations under EMCA. The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that breach of environmental compliance may result in civil and criminal sanctions upon an organization. It is clear that the wellbeing if not the survival of any corporate organization may depend on how environmental compliance issues are handled. This relates to the sanctions that may be imposed for breach of environmental compliance requirements such as damages or closure of the corporation. Officers of corporations such as directors and company secretaries have to ensure that all environmental laws, regulations and policies are adhered to. Breach of this duty may result in both civil and criminal liability under EMCA. Corporates need to be aware of the legal provisions in regard to civil and criminal liability and comply accordingly to avoid incurring liability.

*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. 


Al Ouran, N.M., ‘Analysis of Environmental Health linkages in the EIA process in Jordan,’ International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 7, 2015, pp. 862-871.

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.

Cortec Mining Kenya Limited v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining & 9 others [2015] eKLR.

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 _2009.pdf (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Environmental protection Agency, ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment,’ Available at (Accessed on 21/11/2021).

Esther Wanjiru Mwangi & 3 others v Xinghui International (K) Limited, High Court of Kenya at Nakuru, Civil Suit No. 144 of 2009 (2016) eKLR.

John Mutungu Waititu –vs- China Wuyi (Kenya) Co. Ltd, Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu, ELC Appeal No. 25 of 2017, (2018) eKLR.

Kenya Association of Manufacturers & 2 others v Cabinet Secretary – Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & 3 others [2017] eKLR.

Krstinić, D., Bingulac, N., & Dragojlović, J., “Criminal and civil liability for environmental damage,” Economics of Agriculture 64, no. 3 (2017): 1161-1176.

Muigua K, ‘Strengthening the Environmental Liability Regime in Kenya for Sustainable Development,’ Available at: on 25/11/2021).

Muigua. K, ‘Legal Aspects of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Management, available at (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Muigua, K, ‘Towards Meaningful Public Participation in Natural Resource Management in Kenya’ available at (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Muigua. K, ‘Role of the Company Secretary in Environmental Compliance’ available at (Accessed on 30/11/2019).

Rylands vs Fletcher [1861-73] ALL ER REP 1.

Save Lamu & 5 Others v NEMA & another, Tribunal Appeal No. NET 196 of 2016.

Sustainable Development Goals, available at library/ corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf (Accessed on 25/11/2021).

Vícha, O, The Polluter-Pays Principle In OECD Recommendations And Its Application In International And EC/EU Law, Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 57-67.

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