The Malindi High Court has permanently blocked the proposed 1,050 MW Lamu coal-fired power plant, marking a historic victory for environmental justice and climate accountability in Kenya.
Justice Mwangi Njoroge dismissed Amu Power Company’s appeal and struck out its cross-appeal, affirming the National Environment Tribunal’s 2019 decision to revoke the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license issued by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
Court Upholds Environmental Tribunal Decision
In his judgment, Justice Njoroge ruled that Amu Power failed to demonstrate procedural fairness, environmental due diligence, or compliance with Kenya’s constitutional and climate obligations.
“Amu Power came to court hoping to persuade the court to overturn the tribunal’s decision regarding various issues in its judgment but failed to convince the court,” the judge stated.
The court found that the proposed coal plant violated key constitutional principles under Articles 42 and 69, which guarantee every Kenyan the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Climate Commitments Over Coal
The ruling emphasized that the coal project would undermine Kenya’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and contradict the National Climate Change Action Plan, which prioritizes renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power.
The court observed that Amu Power’s EIA report failed to assess how the coal plant would impact Kenya’s low-carbon development goals or account for potential climate change damages associated with coal combustion.
Environmental and Community Impacts
The proposed plant, to be built at Kwasasi, about 15 kilometers from Lamu Port, was found to pose severe threats to marine biodiversity and local livelihoods.
Environmental groups including Save Lamu and allied organizations presented evidence showing that thermal effluent from the plant could raise seawater temperatures by up to 9°C, endangering fish stocks and coral reefs crucial to the coastal economy.
The court noted that “the EIA report inadequately assessed impacts on residents’ livelihoods, health, and cultural rights,” particularly for fishing-dependent communities.
Procedural and Constitutional Violations
Amu Power was also found to have violated public participation requirements, holding stakeholder meetings before completing the EIA report, thereby denying the community a full understanding of the project’s effects.
The court said the company failed to conduct the mandatory minimum three meetings after EIA approval, as required by law.
Moreover, the project would have been built on public land in environmentally sensitive zones such as mangroves, wetlands, and riparian areas — contrary to provisions of the Land Act and Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA).
Health and Pollution Risks
The judgment highlighted glaring omissions in the EIA report, including the absence of an atmospheric health impact assessment and inadequate controls for mercury and radioactive emissions.
“Proposed pollution controls were insufficient to prevent toxic exposure and long-term respiratory health effects,” the ruling noted.
The EIA also ignored key project components such as a 2,000-acre limestone mine, a 15-kilometer conveyor belt, and coal handling facilities at Lamu Port, all of which would have caused additional environmental harm.
A Landmark Win for Climate Justice
The ruling cements the right to environmental protection as a cornerstone of Kenya’s development framework. It also sends a strong message that Vision 2030 projects must align with sustainability and climate resilience goals.
Environmental groups celebrated the judgment as a precedent-setting victory that could influence similar cases across Africa.
“This ruling affirms that Kenya’s future lies in clean energy, not coal,” said a representative from Save Lamu, calling on the government to invest in renewable energy infrastructure instead.
Conclusion
The Lamu coal plant case marks a major shift in Kenya’s environmental jurisprudence — demonstrating that even nationally endorsed projects must withstand strict judicial scrutiny when they threaten ecological integrity and constitutional rights.
The court’s ruling not only safeguards Lamu’s environment and communities but also reaffirms Kenya’s commitment to global climate action.