By Sam Alfan.
Malindi High Court has permanently blocked the proposed 1,050 MW coal-fired power plant in Lamu County, upholding a tribunal’s decision to cancel the project’s environmental license in a landmark ruling that prioritizes climate commitments over fossil fuel development.
Justice Mwangi Njoroge dismissed Amu Power Company’s appeal and struck out their cross-appeal, backing the National Environment Tribunal’s 2019 decision that revoked the Environmental Impact Assessment license issued by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
The ruling represents a significant victory for environmental activists and coastal communities who challenged the Vision 2030 flagship project, which was planned for Kwasasi, approximately 15 kilometres from Lamu Port.
Save Lamu and allied organizations successfully argued that the project violated numerous environmental and constitutional standards, including:
The court found that the coal plant would undermine Kenya’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and contradict the country’s National Climate Change Action Plan, which prioritizes renewable energy over fossil fuels. The EIA Report failed to analyze how the project would impact Kenya’s low carbon development goals or account for associated climate change damages.
The project risked discharging thermal effluent that could raise seawater temperatures by 9°C, potentially devastating marine biodiversity that sustains Lamu’s fishing-dependent communities. The EIA Report inadequately assessed these impacts on residents’ livelihoods and cultural rights.
Amu Power violated constitutional requirements by holding stakeholder meetings before the EIA Report was completed, making it impossible for communities to understand the project’s full effects. The company failed to conduct the mandatory minimum three meetings after EIA approval.
The project would cause significant air pollution linked to respiratory diseases, yet Amu Power failed to conduct mandatory atmospheric health impact assessments. Proposed pollution controls were inadequate for mercury emissions, and the EIA lacked provisions for managing radioactive elements in coal ash.
The court found the project violated public land laws by proposing development in environmentally sensitive areas including mangroves, wetlands, riparian zones, and territorial seas—areas protected under the Land Act.
The EIA Report contained critical omissions, including inadequate assessment of alternatives to coal power and failure to address a 2,000-acre limestone mine concession, 15-kilometer conveyor belt, and coal handling facilities at Lamu port.
Justice Njoroge stated that Amu Power “came to court hoping to persuade the court to overturn decision regarding various issues in its judgement but failed to convince the court.”
The company had argued that the Tribunal overemphasized procedural flaws, but the court found the process was fundamentally defective across multiple dimensions—from inadequate environmental analysis to constitutional violations.
The ruling reinforces Kenya’s constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment while signaling that development projects must meet rigorous environmental standards and respect international climate commitments, even when designated as national priorities.
