Climate Change Litigation in Comparative Perspective: Evaluating Judicial Approaches in Nigeria, Kenya, and the United Kingdom

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of judicial approaches to climate change litigation in Nigeria, Kenya, and the United Kingdom, three jurisdictions shaped by common law traditions but characterised by differing constitutional frameworks, institutional capacities, and levels of climate policy development. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the study examines relevant case law, statutory regimes, and policy instruments to assess how courts in each jurisdiction have engaged with climate-related claims, particularly those seeking mitigation, adaptation, and procedural accountability. The findings reveal important contrasts. In Kenya, constitutional recognition of the right to a clean and healthy environment, coupled with relatively permissive standing rules, has enabled courts to engage more openly with environmental and climate-related claims, although judicial intervention has often focused on procedural compliance rather than substantive emissions control. In the United Kingdom, the existence of comprehensive climate legislation, most notably the Climate Change Act 2008, has provided a structured basis for litigation, with courts playing a supervisory role through judicial review by assessing the legality, rationality, and transparency of governmental climate strategies, while generally exercising restraint in relation to policy merits. Nigeria’s climate litigation landscape remains comparatively underdeveloped, constrained by procedural barriers, limited climate-specific legislation, and enforcement challenges; however, courts have increasingly addressed climate-relevant harms indirectly through environmental law and human rights-based claims, suggesting an evolving but cautious judicial engagement. By comparing these jurisdictions, the article identifies both shared challenges, such as causation, justiciability, and judicial deference, and divergent pathways through which climate litigation contributes to climate governance.