Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Petroleum & Mining & 2 others Ex parte Dennis Ruto Kapchok (Suing on his Behalf and on behalf of the Citizens of Tamkal, Kiwawa, Alale, Ortum Sebit, Pusel and Chepchoi, Iyon Iyang River, Marich and Endough in West Pokot County; County Governmetn of West Pokot & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 680 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled it can hear a mining licence judicial review despite an alternative appeal route under the Mining Act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction notwithstanding Section 157 of the Mining Act and Section 9(2)-(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
The court found it has jurisdiction: the dispute falls within Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, and Section 157's appeal mechanism does not automatically oust judicial review jurisdiction.
Section 157 is general and covers decisions of the Minister including grant or denial of licences, so an appeal lay to the High Court. However, the court held that alternative remedies do not automatically oust its jurisdiction; it must consider the suitability and expedition of the statutory procedure. The gazette notices were challenged on unconstitutionality grounds for lack of public participation, and review before the 1st respondent would offer no greater expedition. Being a court of equal status to the High Court, competent under Article 162 and Section 13 of the ELC Act, it could not turn away the applicant.
Whether the decision on an objection to a grant of a mining licence was subject to appeal under Section 157 of the Mining Act
Yes - Section 157 is sufficiently general to cover any decision by the Minister, including a decision on the grant or denial of a licence.
Section 157 does not restrict appeals to decisions under specific provisions such as Sections 155 and 156. Section 37, which the applicant relied on, provides for consent of owners of private land but does not provide a dispute resolution mechanism or direct grievances to the Minister. Therefore the applicable challenge provision is Section 157.
Whether the proceedings were defective for being intituled in the name of the Republic at the leave stage
No - the wrong intitulement is not fatal and is curable by amendment.
Relying on the Coral Drive Homes and Meru Central District decisions, the court held that the objection to intitulement may be cured by amendment without prejudice, and since leave had already been granted the application for leave is spent and cannot be attacked by preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute provides a statutory appeal procedure, it is only in exceptional circumstances that an order of judicial review would be granted
- The mere existence of alternative dispute resolution provisions in a statute does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the court once seized of a judicial review dispute; the court may consider the suitability and expedition of the statutory procedure
- Naming the Republic as applicant in a chamber summons for leave is not a fatal defect and may be cured by amendment
Court orders
#- 1.Struck out the preliminary objection dated 3/5/2019
- 2.Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Petroleum & Mining & 2 others Ex parte Dennis Ruto Kapchok (Suing on his Behalf and on behalf of the Citizens of Tamkal, Kiwawa, Alale, Ortum Sebit, Pusel and Chepchoi, Iyon Iyang River, Marich and Endough in West Pokot County; County Governmetn of West Pokot & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review Application (Amended Chamber Summons dated 27/3/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/680/eng@2019-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.