By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021*
The Constitution provides for the enforcement of environmental rights and guarantees that any person may apply to a court for redress in addition to any other legal remedies that are available in respect to the same matter. Further, constitutional provisions that are useful in the promotion of the right under Article 70 are to be found under Articles 22, 23 and 48 thereof. These are important provisions that are aimed at promoting environmental justice for every person through use of public interest litigation. This was also affirmed in the case of Joseph Leboo & 2 others v Director Kenya Forest Services & another [2013] eKLR41 where the Court stated that:
A reading of Articles 42 and 70 of the Constitution, above, make it clear, that one does not have to demonstrate personal loss or injury, in order to institute a cause aimed at the protection of the environment. This position was in fact the applicable position, and still is the position, under the Environment Coordination and Management Act (EMCA), 1999, which preceded the Constitution of Kenya, 2010…. It can be seen that Section 3(4) above permits any person to institute suit relating to the protection of the environment without the necessity of demonstrating personal loss or injury. Litigation aimed at protecting the environment, cannot be shackled by the narrow application of the locus standi rule, both under the Constitution and statute, and indeed in principle. Any person, without the need of demonstrating personal injury, has the freedom and capacity to institute an action aimed at protecting the environment.
In that case, the plaintiffs had filed the suit as representatives of the local community and also in their own capacity. The court concluded that the community, of course, has an interest in the preservation and sustainable use of forests as their very livelihoods depend on the proper management of the forests. The Court went as far as stating that “Even if they had not demonstrated such interest, that would not have been important, as any person who alleges a violation of any law touching on the environment is free to commence litigation to ensure the protection of such environment. I am therefore not in agreement with any argument that purports to state that the plaintiffs have no locus standi in this suit.”
In December 2010, the Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW), a Kenya non-profit organization, filed a case in the East Africa Court of Justice (EACJ) challenging the Tanzanian government’s decision to build a commercial highway across the Serengeti National Park. On June 20, 2014, the court ruled that the government of Tanzania could not build a paved (bitumen) road across the northern section of the Serengeti, as it had planned. It issued a permanent injunction restraining the Tanzanian government from operationalising its initial proposal or proposed action of constructing or maintaining a road of bitumen standard across the Serengeti National Park subject to its right to undertake such other programmes or initiate policies in the future which would not have a negative impact on the environment and ecosystem in the Serengeti National Park.
Some of the ways through which courts can encourage aggrieved persons to make use of public litigation is being slow in awarding costs where such parties do not get favourable outcomes. This was in fact highlighted in the case of Brian Asin & 2 others v Wafula W. Chebukati & 9 others [2017] eKLR43 where the place of public litigation in constitutional matters was summarized in the following words:
“The rationale for refusing to award costs against unsuccessful litigants in constitutional litigation was appreciated by the South African constitutional court which observed that “an award of costs may have a chilling effect on the litigants who might wish to vindicate their constitutional rights.”[27] The court was quick to add that this is not an inflexible rule[28] and that in accordance with its wide remedial powers, the Court has repeatedly deviated from the conventional principle that costs follow the result.[29] The rationale for the deviation was articulated by the South African constitutional Court in Affordable Medicines Trust vs Minister of Health where Ngcobo J remarked:- “There may be circumstances that justify departure from this rule such as where the litigation is frivolous or vexatious. There may be conduct on the part of the litigant that deserves censure by the Court which may influence the Court to order an unsuccessful litigant to pay costs. The ultimate goal is to do that which is just having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Notably, the Environment and Land Court Act gives the court to adopt or implement, on its own motion, with the agreement of or at the request of the parties, any other appropriate means of alternative dispute resolution including conciliation, mediation and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in accordance with Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution. At the same time, where alternative dispute resolution mechanism is a condition precedent to any proceedings before the Environment and Land Court, the Court is bound to stay proceedings until such condition is fulfilled.
As it is, there is no clear definition of some of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution regarding the environment and thus it is up to the courts to give guidance in certain matters. Scholars have argued that the role of courts in recognition of environmental rights around the world has been so fundamental that some scholars have argued that, whereas the right to a clean and healthy environment has rapidly gained constitutional protection around the world, in some countries, recognition of the right first occurred through court decisions determining that it is implicit in other constitutional provisions, primarily the right to life. There is, therefore, a need for judicial activism so that jurisprudence in this area can be improved.
For instance, there is no explanation of what, for example, amounts to a ‘clean and healthy environment.’ As noted by one author, it took the court’s active role to delineate this right in Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v De Samaline Incorporation Ltd Misc. Cause No. 181 of 2004 (High Court of Uganda), where the court expanded the meaning of a clean and healthy environment as follows: ‘I must begin by stating that the right to a clean and healthy environment must not only be regarded as a purely medical matter. It should be regarded as a holistic socialcultural phenomenon because it is concerned with physical and mental well-being of human beings… a clean and healthy environment is measured in both ethical and medical context. It is about linkages in human well-being. These may include social injustice, poverty, diminishing self-esteem, and poor access to health services. That right is not restricted to a clinical model…’
The Environment and Land Court Act also affords suo moto jurisdiction which allows judges to engage in judicial activism to safeguard environmental rights by ensuring sustainable development using the devices envisaged in Article 159 of the Constitution to ease access to justice. Courts may therefore act without necessarily waiting for filing of any cases on public interest litigation so as to promote environmental justice. In the enforcement of other Constitutional rights such as economic and social rights and the right to life under the Constitution, courts should accord such provisions broad interpretations so as to address any environmental factors that impede access to the resources necessary for enjoyment of the rights in question as guaranteed under the Constitution.
*This is article is an extract from an article by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD,Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards): Muigua, K., “The Role of Courts in Safeguarding Environmental Rights in Kenya: A Critical Appraisal,” http://kmco.co.ke/ wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Role-of-Courts-in-Safeguarding-Environmental-Rights-in-Kenya-A-Critical-Appraisal-Kariuki-Muigua-17th-January-2019-1.pdf. 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.
References
African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 9 of 2010.
Brian Asin & 2 others v Wafula W. Chebukati & 9 others [2017] eKLR, Petition 429 of 2017.
Constitution of Kenya, Laws of Kenya, Government Printer, Nairobi.
Environment and Land Court Act, Act No. 19 of 2011.
Boyd, D.R., ‘The Implicit Constitutional Right to Live in a Healthy Environment,’ Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2011, pp. 171-179.
Joseph Leboo & 2 others v Director Kenya Forest Services & another [2013] eKLR, Environment and Land 273 of 2013.
Muigua, K., Avoiding Litigation through the Employment of Alternative Dispute Resolution, a Paper presented by the author at the In-House Legal Counsel, Marcus Evans Conference at the Tribe Village Market Hotel, Kenya on 8th& 9th March, 2012. Available at: http://kmco.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Avoiding-Litigation-through-the-employment-of-ADRMercusEvans-Paper.pdf [Accessed on 02/12/2021]
Strengthening Judicial Reform in Kenya: Public Perceptions and Proposals on the Judiciary in the new Constitution, ICJ Kenya, Vol. III, May, 2002;
Twinomugisha, B.K., “Some Reflections on Judicial Protection of the Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment in Uganda,” 3/3 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2007), p. 244.