Mulungusi Muthembwa Mutunga v Managing Director, Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 others [2017] eKLR Resources, and Benefit Sharing) Regulations 2006. (vi) The 1st and 2nd Respondents did not obtain the prior informed consent, PIC of any interested parties, stakeholders and the community prior to and during operationalization of their project, which is in contravention of Regulation 9(2) of the Regulations. (vii) The 1st and 2nd Respondents did not execute and have not executed a Material Transfer Agreement, MTA as required under Regulation 18 of the Regulations. (viii) The 1st and 2nd Respondents have not conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment and annual Environmental Audits of their activities and they have not obtained an EIA License from NEMA as expressly required under the provisions of Section 58 of EMCA as together with the Second Schedule 13(f) thereof. (ix) No sufficient benefits can accrue to Kenyans out of the proceeds of an illegal agreement and activity. (x) The said agreement is illegal and activities of the project involve the exploitation of genetic resources from Kenya by a foreign company, my right to a clean and healthy environment as clearly enshrined in Articles 42 of the Constitution as read together with the Articles 69 and 70 is being violated, infringed and threatened by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the following manner; (a) The rare, rich and unique genetic wealth of Kenya is being exploited by the 1st and 2nd Respondents under the auspices of an illegal agreement. (b) That in the absence of an EIA and Environmental Audits, it is not possible to evaluate the socioenvironmental Impacts of the activities carried out under the agreement. Consequently, the precautionary principle of sustainable development should be applied strictly. (c) That the Respondents are not protecting the genetic resources and biodiversity of Kenya. They are plundering it under an illegal agreement. (d) The Respondents have failed to ensure sustainable exploitation, utilization, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources and have failed to ensure the equitable sharing of the accruing benefits. (e) The respondents have completely shut out public participation and involvement in the process of entering into the agreement and in its operationalization. (f) The 3rd Respondent is the Government organ obligated to exercise general supervision and coordination over all matters relating to the environment of relevance to this petition, the 3rd respondent is obligated to: (a) Coordinate and oversee the activities of the 1st Respondent as a lead agency with a view to ensuring the proper management and sustainable utilization of genetic resources in protected areas. (b) Receive application for, process and grant/deny access permit to the 2nd Respondent. (c) Enforce environmental regulations relating to access to exploitation of Kenya’s genetic resources. (d) Enforce the law relating to carrying out of EIA and Environmental Audit by the 1st and 2nd http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 3/11