Suistainable Devolepment Initiative (SDI) (CBO) & another v Attorney General & 5 others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2721 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Murang'a residents lost their pollution case against a factory because they couldn't prove it caused environmental harm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition meets the constitutional threshold
The petition met the threshold because it specified Article 42, provided particulars of violation and clearly stated reliefs
The court applied the Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu threshold: a petition must identify with precision the constitutional provision violated, the manner of violation and the relief sought. The petition specified Article 42, gave particulars of the 6th Respondent's alleged failures, and stated the reliefs simply and clearly.
Whether the state Respondents failed in their constitutional and statutory duties
No sufficient evidence that the state Respondents failed in their duties; NEMA acted promptly on the complaint
NEMA, the lead environment agency, convened and participated in a multi-agency stakeholders meeting, inspected the factory in August and November 2024, issued an improvement notice, and referred river blockage to WRA. The other state agencies had no direct environmental role, and WRA was never joined as a party.
Whether the 6th Respondent caused environmental harm
No sufficient proof that the 6th Respondent caused environmental harm
The only expert evidence covered soil and water contamination, not noise or air pollution. The JKUAT report was undermined by lack of party involvement in sampling, no photographs, no laboratory results, and internal inconsistencies regarding PPEs. The 4th Respondent's report of 30-8-2024 contradicted it, and the wetland/high water table conditions explained flooding as a natural phenomenon.
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to special and general damages
Both special and general damages were not proved
Since no environmental harm was proved, damages could not follow. The Agricultural Officer's assessment report was not explained in court as its author was not called, and it lacked details. The claim for cracks in a house lacked any Quantity Surveyor or Valuer's report linking the damage to factory noise.
Whether the 6th Respondent is duly licenced
The 6th Respondent holds the requisite licences and the petition contained no averment to the contrary
The court found the 6th Respondent had the requisite licences including effluent discharge licence, waste transportation arrangements and composting site licences, and noted no averment in the petition alleging absence of licences.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof in a suit lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were adduced by either side (Section 108 of the Evidence Act)
- A constitutional petition must specify the provision violated with particulars and link the violation to the respondent (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold)
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 42 of the Constitution (right to a clean and healthy environment); Article 70 environmental enforcement jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Suistainable Devolepment Initiative (SDI) (CBO) & another v Attorney General & 5 others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2721 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 9-1-2025 (Murang'a). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2721/eng@2026-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.