Two recent court rulings from South Africa and Kenya have set powerful precedents for the promotion and protection of the right to a healthy environment (R2E) across the African continent. The cases, South Africa’s African Climate Alliance & Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others (December 4, 2024) and Kenya’s Metal Refinery (EPZ) Ltd v. Owino Uhuru Residents (6 December 2024), highlight the critical role of judicial systems in upholding constitutional and environmental rights. Together, they signal a growing recognition of the intersection between human rights and environmental justice in Africa.
South Africa: Youth-Led Climate Justice Triumphs in African Climate Alliance & Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others
On 4 December 2024, the High Court of South Africa delivered a landmark judgment declaring the government’s plan to add 1,500 MW of coal-fired power to the national grid ‘unlawful and invalid’. This ruling came as a result of the ‘Cancel Coal’ case, a youth-led legal challenge spearheaded by the African Climate Alliance (ACA), Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action (VEM), and the Groundwork Trust. Represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), the applicants argued that the government’s decision violated sections of the South African Constitution guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment (Section 24) and prioritising the best interests of children (Section 28).
The court stated that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) had not sufficiently considered the human rights effects of coal power. In this respect, Judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen noted that the respondents had failed to consider the health implications of their decision, the likely impact on the environment, and the effects on future generations of South Africans. The judgment ordered the removal of 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power from South Africa’s 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). It compelled the government to reassess energy policies in terms of constitutional obligations.
Advancing Intergenerational Equity and Climate Accountability
This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it highlights the fact that children’s and youth’s rights and needs are still disregarded, although they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the long-term effects of climate change. Evidence produced in the trial puts into perspective the significant health risks associated with coal-fired power, such as respiratory diseases and premature deaths. In recognising these harms, the court affirmed that decision-making cannot ignore inter-generational equity; instead, it must account for it, the ability not to cause harm to future generations but to protect them from environmental damage.
Second, the judgment strengthens the legal framework for climate accountability, setting a precedent for future challenges to environmentally harmful projects. The ruling underscores the importance of evidence-based and participatory policymaking by emphasising the constitutional obligations to safeguard the environment and children’s rights. As stated by Chulumanco Nkasela of the ACA, this legal victory is deeply important for South Africa not only today, but into the future, as it means that the South African judicial system realises the importance of considering youth and future generations in every decision.’
Kenya: Supreme Court Orders Justice in Metal Refinery (EPZ) Ltd v. Owino Uhuru Residents
Meanwhile, in Kenya, the Supreme Court awarded 1.3 billion Kenyan shillings (approximately USD 15 million) in damages to residents of Mombasa’s Owino Uhuru village. The court also mandated an additional 700 million shillings for environmental clean-up, holding the Metal Refinery (EPZ) Ltd and various government agencies accountable for years of toxic lead emissions. The pollution had devastating consequences, including over 20 confirmed deaths and hundreds of cases of chronic terminal illnesses.
The court’s decision affirmed the ruling by the Environment and Land Court (ELC), emphasising that the polluter must bear the costs of both victim compensation and environmental restoration. The judges condemned the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) for its failure to enforce regulations, noting that the factory operated without a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or public participation, both critical safeguards under Kenyan law. While issuing the judgement, the Supreme Court judges set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal that reversed the ruling of the ELC court after two state agencies NEMA and the Exports Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) appealed the ELC ruling hence denying the residents access to justice and effective remedies for the environmental and health harms they endured. The ruling by the Court of Appeal is what pushed the residents to move to the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision and access justice.
Balancing Environmental Justice and Accountability
The Supreme Court’s decision in Metal Refinery (EPZ) Ltd v. Owino Uhuru Residents has profound implications for environmental governance, corporate accountability, and human rights in Kenya and beyond. By affirming the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the ruling establishes a strong legal precedent that corporations and regulatory bodies cannot evade responsibility for environmental harm. This decision is likely to influence future litigation, encouraging affected communities to seek legal redress for environmental injustices. It also pressures regulatory agencies, such as NEMA, to enforce environmental laws more rigorously to avoid liability. Moreover, the ruling may prompt legislative reforms, strengthening Kenya’s environmental legal framework to prevent similar cases of industrial pollution. The recognition of environmental degradation as a human rights violation reinforces the intersectionality of environmental justice with public health, economic equity, and social protection, ensuring that marginalized communities are not left to bear the cost of corporate negligence.
Beyond Kenya, the ruling has regional and global significance, particularly in jurisdictions where environmental justice remains weakly enforced. African nations grappling with pollution from extractive industries, such as oil spills in Nigeria and toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast, may find legal inspiration in this case to strengthen their environmental laws and hold violators accountable. Additionally, the decision could influence international environmental governance by reinforcing the role of courts in compelling governments and businesses to uphold sustainability and human rights. Foreign investors operating in Kenya and other African nations may also face increased scrutiny regarding their environmental practices, leading to improved compliance with environmental and social governance (ESG) standards. In the long run, the judgment not only delivers justice to Owino Uhuru residents but also signals a shift toward stronger accountability mechanisms, ensuring that environmental harm is addressed as a matter of legal and moral urgency.
The Broader Implications for Africa
Both cases exemplify the growing role of courts in bridging environmental and human rights protections. As climate change and environmental degradation intensify, courts are increasingly being called upon to adjudicate disputes that test the boundaries of constitutional, statutory, and international environmental obligations. They serve as crucial arbiters in holding both state and private actors accountable for environmental harm, ensuring that human rights frameworks are not merely aspirational but enforceable in practice. Judicial interventions like these; signal a shift towards stronger environmental governance, where courts act as checks against government inaction or corporate overreach, compelling authorities to align policy decisions with sustainability and justice imperatives. Looking ahead, courts across Africa will likely continue to play a pivotal role in shaping environmental jurisprudence, particularly as more communities and civil society organizations turn to legal avenues to contest ecologically harmful projects. By strengthening legal precedents and affirming the justiciability of environmental rights, courts can reinforce accountability, drive legislative reforms, and ensure that economic development does not come at the cost of human and ecological well-being.
The rulings resonate beyond their national borders, offering hope to other African communities grappling with environmental harm, and underscore several key principles:
- R2E as a fundamental right: The judgments affirm that the right to a healthy environment is integral to human dignity, well-being, and intergenerational equity. It reaffirms the significance of the twin resolutions by the UNHRC and UNGA that recognised the R2E and accelerates the domestication and implementation of the right at the national level.
- Accountability of State and non-State actors: Governments and private entities must ensure that their activities comply with constitutional and environmental standards and that they fulfil their obligations to protect the R2E. Failure to do so will result in legal action and consequences.
- The power of civil society: Both cases were spearheaded by grassroots organisations and affected communities, showcasing the transformative impact of collective action.
- Youth leadership in climate action: Young activists in South Africa’s Cancel Coal case demonstrated the critical role of youth in shaping a sustainable future that guarantees a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all.
Upholding Justice for a Sustainable Africa
As African nations face escalating environmental challenges and intensified development tied to their natural resource extraction, these rulings provide a blueprint for using the law to safeguard human and environmental rights. Governments must heed these judgments, adopting transparent and participatory decision-making processes that prioritise sustainability and social justice. Moreover, international actors should support capacity-building initiatives to strengthen legal frameworks and empower vulnerable communities.
In a world grappling with climate change and environmental degradation, these two landmark cases remind us of the judiciary’s vital role in advancing access to justice. The victories in African Climate Alliance & Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others and Metal Refinery (EPZ) Ltd v. Owino Uhuru Residents are not just legal milestones; they are a call to action for a healthier, fairer, and more sustainable Africa.
________________________________________________________________________
Photo credit: Helen ST via Flickr.
Share this Post
