Governance, Policy and Laws on Climate Change and Planetary Health

Abstract

This paper examines emerging Kenya’s environmental jurisprudence by comparing the Owino Uhuru v. Metal Factory decision and similar precedents to the Dutch landmark Urgenda v. Netherlands judgement. The analysis underscores how judicial activism blends local realities with global legal standards to develop global environmental jurisprudence and promote ecological integrity. Building on Kenya’s constitutional protection of environmental rights, the Owino Uhuru case held public authorities and private entities accountable for environmental harm caused by industrial pollution. Relying on principles such as precautionary measures and the polluter pays doctrine, the judgment authorizes financial redress and remediation actions by polluters. By declaring government inaction on greenhouse gas emissions, a violation of fundamental human rights, the Urgenda case compelled the state to adopt more stringent mitigation measures for environmental harm. The judgement has subsequently inspired global climate litigation based on adoption of international human rights norms and use of scientific evidence. This paper adopts a doctrinal research methodology, critically analyzing policy instruments, constitutional provisions, statutes and judicial opinions to trace the trajectory of climate justice litigation in Kenya. Such analysis provides valuable insights into the transformative potential of judicial interventions, offering blueprints for policymakers, legal practitioners, scholars and other climate justice activists to advance climate justice on both national and global arenas.