Nyeri

Kirinyaga

Samburu

Kisii

Siaya

Kisumu

Taita/Taveta

Kitui

Tana River

Kwale

Tharaka-Nithi

Laikipia

Trans Nzoia

Lamu

Turkana

Machakos

Baringo

Uasin Gishu

Makueni

Bomet

Vihiga

Mandera

Bungoma

Wajir

Marsabit

Busia

West Pokot

Meru

Elgeyo/Marakwet

Migori

Embu

Mombasa

Garissa

Murang'a

Homa Bay

Nairobi City

Isiolo

Nakuru

Kajiado

Nandi

Kakamega

Narok

Kericho

Nyamira

Kiambu

Nyandarua

Kilifi

Kenya

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

The Plaintiffs challenged a decision by the National Environment Tribunal (NET), that upheld the decision of the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in granting the 2nd Respondent Sosian Energy Limited (SEL) an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license to operate a geothermal energy project. The EIA license was contested on among other grounds that there was inadequate public participation. Regarding climate change, the decision of the NET was challenged for requiring the 2nd respondent to conduct a climate change impact assessment without making it a precondition for commencing any project activity.

The court determined that climate impact assessment serves as a mechanism to inform policy development and decision-making, ensuring that actions are in accordance with obligations pertaining to climate change by identifying potential impacts and risks linked to climate change as well as proposed projects or policies. It emphasized that, climate impact assessments are essential for comprehending the potential ramifications of climate change and for formulating effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. Consequently, they ought to be conducted prior to the initiation of a proposed project, during which scoping, stakeholder engagement, risk assessment, and impact analysis are taken into account. 

The appeals court found that the tribunal erred in law and in fact in finding that there was proper public participation and erred in not requiring a climate impact assessment. 

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. 

Members of Ilchamus and Tugen communities living on the shores of Lake Baringo in Kenya  together with Kituo cha Sheria (a Kenyan Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization) have  filed a climate change petition being Iten ELC Petition No. 007 of 2022 - Legal Advice  Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v Attorney General and 7 Others before the  Environment and Land court (ELC) in Iten.  
The petitioners allege violation of several rights under the Constitution of the Republic of  Kenya 2010. Consequently, they seek to enforce climate change duties of public officials under  the Climate Change Act No. 11 of 2016 Laws of Kenya and other related constitutional rights  under the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya 2010. The Petitioners assert that they are  victims of climate change related flooding which has caused massive displacement and loss of  life and property. 
The petitioners contend that the flooding has been caused by hydro-meteorological variables  due to climate change. The ELC in Iten allowed an application by the Petitioners requesting the Chief justice and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya to empanel a three judge  ELC bench to hear their case on the failure, neglect and or refusal by several government  officials to discharge their obligations under the Climate Change Act 2016. 

The petitioners seek 12 substantive orders among them, a declaration that relevant government  officials failed, refused and or neglected to take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent  or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse impacts; a declaration that  relevant government officials failed, refused and or neglected to avert, minimize and address  effects of climate change suffered by petitioners; an order to compel relevant government  officials to rehabilitate, relocate, and restore damaged infrastructure; an order for compensation  for climate change damage; and an order for resettlement of flood victims. 


On August 24, 2021, Sasenyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited filed a case against Rukinga Ranching Company in the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa. At issue was the parcel of land known as L.R. No. 12263/2 (the “Property”), measuring approximately 5,000 acres situated within Taita Taveta County. The Property was part of a bigger parcel owned by Defendant. According to Plaintiff, however, pursuant to a sale agreement dated April 8, 1998, the Property’s leasehold interest was sold to Plaintiff with the Property’s freehold tenure certified upon full payment. Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff sought to obtain proper title of the Property and compensation in respect of the carbon credit income the Defendant acquired over the years.

The case was transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Voi on April 3, 2025.

Upon review, Judge E. K. Wabwoto, on July 23, 2026, found that Defendant had an “obligation to convey to the Plaintiff a good leasehold title to the [Property].” More importantly, however, the court dismissed the claim for compensation arising from Defendant’s carbon credit project. In doing so, the court developed an elaborate body of principles concerning carbon credits, carbon rights, REDD+, climate governance and remedies—first of a kind in Kenya, according to the court. 

The court held that for disputes following carbon credit:
(i) Entitlement follows the land: the right to establish a carbon project and to the credits and income it generates is an incident of lawful ownership of, or lawful rights over, the land or resource generating the reduction, avoidance or sequestration. A claimant to carbon income must therefore trace his claim to a recognized proprietary interest in the project land, or to a contractual or statutory entitlement.
(ii) Contract is the vehicle of the carbon trade: carbon transactions are contractual in nature and are governed by the ordinary principles of the law of contract, subject only to the statutory safeguards enacted below.
(iii) The community entitlements created by the Community Development Agreement must be pursued through the statutory channels, beginning with the dispute resolution mechanisms in the Community Development Agreement itself. The statutory regime does not create a roving equitable entitlement in favour of any neighbour or stranger to a project to share in its proceeds.
(iv) The regime is prospective.
(v) Monetary claims to carbon income are commercial claims subject to the ordinary rules of pleading and proof: a claimant must specifically plead and strictly prove the income said to have been earned and the basis of his share therein. Tools including the National Carbon Registry, verification reports, and issuance records furnish the means of such proof.
(vi) In interpreting and applying this framework, courts should be guided by the constitutional values of sustainable development, intergenerational equity, public participation, and the equitable sharing of accruing benefits under Articles 10, 42, 60, 69, and 70 of the Constitution.

Geography

Kenya

Recent cases