In Kenya Petition 32 & 35 of 2017 & Judicial Review Application 30 of 2017 (Consolidated), the Kenyan government banned “the use, manufacture and importation of certain types of plastic bags used for commercial and household packaging.” Id. at para. 1. The petitioners were the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (and others, generally representative of the plastic industry) in three suits consolidated into one. The petitioners claimed, among other things, that the ban was an unconstitutional limitation of their rights. The agency countered that the Kenyan Constitution recognizes the need to respect and sustain the environment for the benefit of future generations, secures the right to a clean and healthy environment and places upon the State the obligation to ensure that the right is protected, and creates positive obligations on part of the State to ensure sustainable management of the environment, in addition to recognizing the precautionary principle. Kenya Petition at Para. 27-28 (citing to Preamble, Arts. 42, 69, 70). Furthermore, the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (“EMCA”) provides for the right to a clean and healthy environment and empowers the agency to issue guidelines and prescribe measures for the management of hazardous materials and processes. Id at Para. 29 (citing EMCA Sections 3, 86). The government respondents explained that, “it was scientifically determined under Section 86 of EMCA that plastic is a hazardous material and plastic bags were identified as the most harmful.” Specifically, the respondents presented that “plastic carrier bags and flat bags are easily blown around and cause harm when ingested by livestock and wildlife. . . . [D]ue to their non-biodegradable nature, plastic bags are known to endanger both flora and fauna, block waterways leading to flooding, emit harmful dioxin and furans when burnt, and are persistent pollutants of the environment.” Id. at Para. 30. The Environment and Land Court at Nairobi ultimately held that although the plastic bag ban did limit the petitioner’s rights, this limitation was reasonable and justifiable. Id at Para. 158. This is true even though some ordinary Kenyans may suffer some economic losses, because the plastic ban “is for the common good of the general public and as such lawful.” Id at Para. 162. Accordingly, the Court declined to annul the ban and dismissed all three suits. Id at Para. 164.