Case Number REFERENCE NO. 9 OF 2010


  1. The Reference herein is dated 8th December 2010 and was filed in Court on 10th December 2010.
  2. The Applicant, African Network for Animal Welfare (hereinafter “ANAW”) has described itself as a Charitable Pan-African animal welfare and community-centred organization registered as a Non-Governmental Organisation in Kenya and was registered as such on 21st June 2006. It is represented in these proceedings by Mr. Saitabao Kanchory Mbalelo, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and whose address for service was previously Odyssey Plaza, Ist Floor, Mukoma Road, South B, P. O. Box 23746 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya but now said to be c/o Kanchory & Co Advocates, Upper Hill Gardens, Block C – 18, 3rd Ngong Avenue, PO. Box 23746 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
  3. The Respondent is the Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania sued as such on behalf of the latter, a Partner State within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (hereinafter, “the Treaty” and “the EAC”, respectively).
  4. In the proceedings before us, he was represented by Mr. Gabriel Pascal Malata, Principal State Attorney, Ms. Stella Machoke, Senior State Attorney and Mr. Theophilo Alexander, Advocate.The address of service for the Respondent has been given as Attorney General’s Chambers, Kivukoni Front, P.O. Box 9050, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
RespondentThe Attorney General of The United Republic of Tanzania
ComplainantAfrican Network For Animal Welfare
Date filedDecember 10, 2010
CountriesKenya , Tanzania
Treaty ArticleArticle 1 , Article 3

First Instance Judgment

VerdictConclusion 85.This Reference raises issues that are today the subject of wide debate across the world, including; environmental protection, sustainable development, environmental rule of law and the role of the State in policy formulation in matters relating to the environment and natural resources. In addition, the role of the Court in balancing its interpretative jurisdiction against the needs of ensuring that Partner States are not unduly hindered in their developmental programs has come to the fore. All these issues must however be looked at from the one common thread running through the Reference viz. the need to protect the Serengeti ecosystem for the sake of future generations and whether the road project has potential for inflicting irreparable damage to the environment. The damage will be irreversible and we have already ruled on that subject based on the evidence before us and no more. And we have also restrained ourselves from merely approving the decision of the United Republic of Tanzania because it may be a popular decision with its policy makers-See Society for the Protection of Silent Valley vs Union of India 1980 Kerala HC. Whatever orders we must make therefore should be preventative and for obvious reasons; the environment, once damaged is rarely ever repaired. 86. Having so stated, the final orders that are appropriate in the unique circumstances of the matter before us are the following: i)A declaration is hereby issued that the initial proposal or the proposed action by the Respondent to construct a road of bitumen standard across the Serengeti National Park is unlawful and infringes Articles 5(3)(c),8(1)(c),111(2) and 114(1) of the Treaty. ii) A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondent from operationalising its initial proposal or proposed action of constructing or maintaining a road of bitumen standard across the Serengeti National Park subject to its right to undertake such other programmes or initiate policies in the future which would not have a negative impact on the environment and ecosystem in the Serengeti National Park. iii) Each party shall bear its own costs.         It is Ordered accordingly. Dated, Delivered and signed at Arusha this 20th day of June 2014.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredJune 20, 2014

Appeal Judgment

PDF document
Date delivered