Charlsity Investment Limited & 14 others v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement & Benefits Scheme & another [2019] KEELC 1366 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a land dispute suit because the plaintiffs should have first appealed to the National Environment Tribunal under Kenyan environmental law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction where the dispute arises from an Environmental Restoration Order under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act
The court lacks original jurisdiction; the plaintiffs should have appealed to the National Environment Tribunal under Section 129 of EMCA within sixty days
Section 129(1) of EMCA provides that any person aggrieved by an environmental restoration order imposed by the Authority may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days. Section 130(1) allows appeal from the Tribunal to the High Court. Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act bars judicial review unless statutory remedies are exhausted. The plaintiffs were each served with the Environmental Restoration Order and should have followed the laid-down procedure instead of filing suit.
Whether specialized tribunals must be given the first option to determine disputes arising under statutes that establish them
Yes; the National Environment Tribunal is a specialized body acquainted with environmental issues and should have considered the matter first
Relying on Michael Moragia Nyachae & Another v Buddies Kisii Limited, which in turn adopted Speaker of the National Assembly v Hon. James Njenga Karume, the court held that statutes establishing specialized committees and tribunals must be permitted to exercise their mandate before courts are seized of jurisdiction, save for exceptional cases of judicial review.
Whether the suit is frivolous and vexatious
Yes; the suit was found frivolous and vexatious and was struck out
Having determined that the court lacked original jurisdiction because the plaintiffs bypassed the statutory appeal mechanism, the court found merit in the preliminary objection and characterized the suit as frivolous and vexatious, striking it out with costs to the defendants.
Legal principles established
#- Where a clear procedure for redress of a particular grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed
- A court must down its tools the moment it determines it lacks jurisdiction
- Remedies available under other written law, including tribunal appeals, must be exhausted before instituting proceedings in court
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the 2nd defendant is upheld
- 2.The plaintiffs' suit is struck out with costs to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (jurisdiction contested on grounds of Sections 129 and 130 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charlsity Investment Limited & 14 others v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement & Benefits Scheme & another [2019] KEELC 1366 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 6/4/2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1366/eng@2019-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.