Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 13th May 2019 (Kericho)· [2019] KEELC 2402 (KLR)

Philip Kiptanui Rugut & 2 others v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others [2019] KEELC 2402 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 July 2019
4,471 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, residents of Chemamul area, filed a Petition on 13th May 2019 challenging the Environmental Impact Assessment licence issued by NEMA and the licences and approvals issued by the County Government of Bomet for the construction of the Kipsigis Highlands Tea Factory by Kipsigis Highlands Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society. They alleged violations of numerous constitutional provisions, including the right to a clean and healthy environment and access to information, and sought declarations, cancellation of licences, a fresh EIA, environmental restoration, judicial review orders and general damages. The 2nd Respondent, the County Government of Bomet, raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the Petitioners had not exhausted remedies under EMCA including appeal to the National Environment Tribunal, that no statutory notice under section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act was issued, and that the Petition was defective. In a ruling delivered at Kericho on 12th July 2019, Onyango J identified two grounds qualifying as preliminary objections. On jurisdiction, the court held that although the Tribunal ordinarily hears appeals against EIA licences, the reliefs sought exceeded the Tribunal's powers, and the 60-day appeal window under section 129 EMCA had lapsed with no provision for extension, constituting special circumstances justifying the Petition in the Environment and Land Court. On the statutory notice, the court held that strict application of section 13A impedes access to justice and does not render the Petition fatally defective. The preliminary objection was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction despite the alternative remedy before the National Environment Tribunal

Holding

The ELC has jurisdiction because the reliefs sought exceed the Tribunal's powers and the 60-day statutory appeal window under section 129 EMCA has expired with no provision for extension, constituting special circumstances.

Reasoning

The court considered the reliefs sought, including declarations of constitutional violations and cancellation of licences, and found they cannot all be granted by the Tribunal. The EIA licence was issued in March 2017, so the 60-day period to appeal to the Tribunal under section 129 EMCA had lapsed, and rule 7 of the NET procedure rules prohibits extension of time. EMCA therefore could not provide an adequate and efficacious remedy, and the proper forum is the ELC with unlimited original and appellate jurisdiction over environment and land matters.

p. 6
02

Whether failure to give the 30-day notice under section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act is fatal

Holding

It is not fatal; the requirement, applied strictly to the 47 county governments, impedes access to justice and is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Reasoning

Relying on Nyandoche Ibere Cooperative Society v County Government of Kisii, which cited Kenya Bus Service Ltd, the court adopted Majanja J's finding that section 13A of the GPA was enacted when there was only one national government and was never amended to conform with the 2010 Constitution; it diminishes the citizen's ability to seek relief against the Government and violates article 48. The court fully associated itself with those decisions and held non-compliance does not render the Petition incurably defective.

p. 7
03

What constitutes a proper preliminary objection

Holding

Only the jurisdiction ground and the section 13A notice ground qualified as preliminary objections under the Mukisa Biscuit definition.

Reasoning

The court adopted the classic Mukisa Biscuit formulation: a preliminary objection is a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if the exercise of judicial discretion is sought. Viewed against that definition, only two of the grounds in the Notice of Preliminary Objection qualified: the question of jurisdiction and whether failure to comply with section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act renders the Petition fatally defective.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the reliefs sought go beyond the jurisdiction of the National Environment Tribunal and the statutory appeal window under section 129 EMCA has lapsed with no provision for extension, special circumstances exist warranting the filing of the Petition in the Environment and Land Court.
  • Failure to issue the 30-day notice under section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act does not render a Petition against a county government fatally defective, the provision being an impediment to access to justice inconsistent with the 2010 Constitution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 42, 48, 69, 70(1), 162(2)(b), 169(1)(d)
  • Environment Management and Coordination Act, No 8 of 1999Sections 125, 126, 127, 129(1), 129(2), 130
  • Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003Regulation 46(1)(f)
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap 40Section 13A
  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 13(1), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSections 3, 4 and 5
  • NET Procedure RulesRule 7

Cases cited (16)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    1969 EA 696
  • R v Karisa Chengo and 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • The Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian "S" v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited
    1989 KLR 1653
  • Joseph Owino Muchesia & Another v National Environment and Management Authority & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others v Darasa Investments Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Secretary, County Public Service Board & Another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille
    [2017] eKLR
  • Isaac Ngugi v Nairobi Hospital & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Rich Productions Ltd v Kenya Pipeline Ltd & Public Procurement Oversight Authority
    [2014] eKLR
  • Damian Belafonte v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
    C.A No. 84 of 2004
  • Patrick Musumba v National Land Commission & 4 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Ken Kisiang'a v Daniel Kiplangat Kirui & 5 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Mara Siana Conservancy Limited & 2 others v Director General National Environment Authority & 4 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Simba Corporation Limited v Director General National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Stephen Wanyee Roki v Rep Bank and 2 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Nyandoche Ibere Cooperative Society v County Government of Kisii & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kenya Bus Service Ltd & Another
    2012 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and sections 13 and 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Philip Kiptanui Rugut & 2 others v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others [2019] KEELC 2402 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition dated 13th May 2019 (Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2402/eng@2019-07-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.