Embu

Nyamira

Laikipia

Homa Bay

Machakos

Nyandarua

Garissa

Lamu

Makueni

Isiolo

Nyeri

Mandera

Samburu

Kericho

Kajiado

Siaya

Marsabit

Kiambu

Taita/Taveta

Tharaka-Nithi

Meru

Kakamega

Tana River

Migori

Kilifi

Trans Nzoia

Mombasa

Turkana

Kisii

Bomet

Murang'a

Uasin Gishu

Kirinyaga

Baringo

Nairobi City

Vihiga

Kisumu

Bungoma

Nakuru

Wajir

Nandi

Kwale

West Pokot

Busia

Kitui

Narok

Elgeyo/Marakwet

Kenya

increase annual per capita water availability from 647m3 to 1000m3 by 2022

decrease emissions by 30% from the business as usual scenario by 2030

increase forest cover to at least 10% of total land area by 2022

960,000 ha forest restoration by 2030 against a 2012 baseline

281,000 ha cropland converstion to agroforest by 2030

2,275 MW geothermal capacity development by 2030

Annual per capita water availability from 647 m3 to 1000m3 by 2023

Increase forest cover to 10% of total land area; rehabilitate degraded lands, including rangelands; increase resilience of the wildlife and tourism sector by 2023 compared with a  scenario

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. 


Kenya

Recent cases