Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti v. Nuclear Power and Energy Agency

Geography
Date
2023
Document type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2023
Status
Decided
Court/admin entity
KenyaEnvironment and Land Court in Malindi
Case category
Suits against governmentsAccess to informationSuits against governmentsEnergy and powerSuits against governmentsEnvironmental assessment and permittingRenewable projectsUtilitiesSuits against governmentsProtecting biodiversity and ecosystems
Principal law
KenyaEnvironmental Impact Assessment & Audit RegulationsKenyaEnvironmental Management and Coordination Act 2009
At issue
Whether the approval and advancement of Kenya’s first nuclear power plant in Kilifi County violated constitutional and statutory requirements.

Documents

There are no documents to display yet. Check back later.

Summary

In early 2022, Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) initiated preliminary steps toward the development of a 1,000 MW nuclear power facility in Kilifi County. The project was intended to advance Kenya’s energy development agenda, which is pursuant to the state’s Vision 2030 plan. NuPEA selected a 600-acre tract in Kilifi South for the plant, which is adjacent to the Indian Ocean. The facility is expected to rely entirely on imported uranium fuel and was estimated to cost approximately 3.8 billion USD. Advocates Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti, acting on behalf of residents of Kilifi and environmental rights defenders, submitted a complaint in July of 2023 in the Environment and Land Court in Malindi. The plaintiffs alleged that NuPEA’s actions in their site selection and initiating preliminary activities were conducted in contravention of multiple provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The plaintiffs specifically allege a violation of Article 10 (national values and principles of governance, including public participation and sustainable development). The plaintiffs contend that NuPEA failed to incorporate meaningful public participation during the site selection process and disclose critical documents, such as risk analysis and feasibility assessments. The plaintiffs also raised concerns around NuPEA’s failure to submit a finalized Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). NuPEA has stated that the development of the power plant is necessary for reaching the state’s climate mitigation goals. In a ruling issued in 2025, the court declined to grant an interim injunction suspending the project, determining that the plaintiffs’ petition did not qualify for immediate relief. The court did affirm that the dispute raises constitutional and environmental concerns, and referred the matter to Chief Justice Martha Koome to establish a multi-judge bench.