Kuria & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5361 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted construction of the Gatuanyaga Export Processing Zone because no environmental impact assessment or public participation happened first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition and the Application
- 2.Whether the Petitioners have the locus standi to file the Petition
- 3.Whether, prima facie, the Petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment has been or is likely to be infringed
- 4.Whether conservatory orders should issue
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over the Petition
The ELC has jurisdiction; the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee does not, since the Petitioners are not challenging any Liaison Committee decision but allege infringement of environmental rights
The Court's jurisdiction flows from Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, including hearing applications for redress of threats to the right to a clean and healthy environment under Articles 42, 69 and 70. Although the Liaison Committee has jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, the Petitioners are not appealing any of its decisions; their prayers are confined to alleged rights infringements, so the Committee lacks the requisite jurisdiction.
Locus standi of the Petitioners
Petitioners have locus standi; Articles 22, 70 and Section 3 EMCA allow any person to sue to protect the environment without demonstrating personal loss or injury
Article 70(2) expressly provides an applicant need not demonstrate loss or injury. Following Joseph Leboo, environmental litigation cannot be shackled by narrow locus standi rules, reflecting intergenerational equity. Rule 4 of the Mutunga Rules also permits suits in the public interest or on behalf of a class. Whether or not Petitioners are association members or directly affected, they may prosecute the Petition.
Whether the right to a clean and healthy environment is prima facie threatened
Yes - a prima facie case with chances of success was established, warranting conservatory orders
A Gazette Notice declaring the EPZ has already been published without demonstrated public participation, and construction works (beacons, roads, excavation) have begun. Where environmental protection procedures such as EIA are not followed, the court may assume the right is under threat. Waiting for scientific proof risks irreversible damage; short-term economic stagnation does not outweigh environmental imperatives under the precautionary principle and sustainable development doctrine.
Legal principles established
#- Any person may institute proceedings to protect the right to a clean and healthy environment without demonstrating personal loss or injury
- Where procedures for the protection of the environment are not followed, the right to a clean and healthy environment may be assumed to be under threat
- Where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty is no reason to postpone protective measures (precautionary principle)
Court orders
#- 1.A conservatory order restraining the Respondents from commencing construction of the Export Processing Zone as declared in Legal Notice No. 201
- 2.The Notice of Motion Application dated 12/01/2024 (by the 7th and 8th Respondents seeking striking out) dismissed in its entirety
- 3.Costs of the 12/01/2024 Application borne by the 7th and 8th Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Petition and the Application dated 18/12/2023 sought by the 7th and 8th Respondents
Court found Petitioners have locus standi and jurisdiction lies with the ELC; conservatory orders were granted instead
Dismissal of the Petition and Application as against the 6th Respondent (National Assembly) for want of standing and specificity
Court held Petitioners have locus standi and established a prima facie case; no striking out order made against the Petition
Costs
Costs of the 12/01/2024 Application to be borne by the 7th and 8th Respondents; no costs order stated on the 18/12/2023 Application/Petition at this interlocutory stage.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A conservatory order is hereby issued restraining the Respondents through themselves, their servants, employees, agents and/or from commencing construction of the Export Processing Zone as declared in Legal Notice No. 201.
The Notice of Motion Application dated 12/01/2024 is unmerited and is thus dismissed in its entirety.
That costs of this Application be borne by the 7th and 8th Respondents.
the locus standi to file suits challenging the violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment is given to all and sundry.
Where a Court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.
The short term economic stagnation that may result due to the conservatory orders of this Court does not outweigh the environmental imperatives of the project.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment describes the ruling as concerning a Petition by residents of Gatuanyaga within Kiambu County, but paragraph 95 recites a case about Tiva River in Kitui County, which is unrelated to the matter before the Court
Internal inconsistency in the number of plots in the Gatuanyaga Settlement Plan - cited variously as 558 and 584 households
The Anarita Karimi Njeru citation is given inconsistently as (1979) eKLR and (1971) eKLR in different paragraphs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kuria & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5361 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 18/12/2023 (Thika ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5361/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.