Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 22nd January 2019 (in suit before the Environment and Land Court, Malindi)· [2020] KEELC 3010 (KLR)

Jabeth Investment Limited v National Environment Management Authority Kilifi County & another [2020] KEELC 3010 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 April 2020
1,481 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment Court refused to review an order returning a hotel's impounded equipment because the regulator waited too long and claimed ignorance of facts it already knew.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The National Environment Management Authority (2nd Defendant) applied by Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2019 under Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for review and setting aside of Order No. 3 issued by the Environment and Land Court at Malindi on 25th October 2018, which declared the impounding of the Plaintiff's music equipment illegal and mandated its return. The order had been granted ex-parte in the Plaintiff's favour after the Defendants failed to attend the inter-partes hearing despite service. The Applicant argued that the order was impossible of performance because the equipment were exhibits in Malindi Criminal Case No. 964 of 2018 (Republic v Faith Kariuki) held under the Inspector General of Police, that the order was obtained by misrepresentation, and that the matter constituted grounds for review not previously made known to the Court. The Plaintiff opposed, contending the Defendants were properly served, had deliberately failed to attend, and that the application was a delaying tactic. Justice J.O. Olola held that the application did not disclose any new and important matter: the criminal charges were instituted on 8th October 2018, well before the inter-partes hearing, and the Republic prosecuted through the Applicant itself, so it could not feign ignorance. The Applicant also delayed some three months in filing without reasonable explanation. Finding no merit, the Court dismissed the application with costs on 29th April 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the existence of criminal charges over the impounded equipment constituted new and important matter for review

Holding

No - the charges were instituted on 8th October 2018 and the Applicant, as complainant in the criminal case, must have been aware of them when the inter-partes hearing took place on 25th October 2018

Reasoning

The Court found the Applicant could not feign ignorance since the Republic prosecuted through the Applicant itself. The allegation that the Inspector General of Police held the items was made without stating the source of information and did not amount to new evidence that due diligence could not have availed when the orders were made.

p. 2
02

Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay

Holding

No - the Applicant was aware of the matter in October 2018 but filed the review application only three months later in January 2019, with no reasonable explanation

Reasoning

The Applicant attributed the delay partly to the Court's November leave and December vacation, but the Court found the explanation insufficient. Undue delay independently disentitled the Applicant from review relief under Order 45 which requires application without unreasonable delay.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review under Order 45 Rule 1 must be clear and specific on the basis upon which it is made
  • Review on discovery of new evidence requires proof of due diligence and that the matter was not within the applicant's knowledge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2019 seeking review and setting aside of Order No. 3 issued on 25th October 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45(1)
  • Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, Cap 387Section 137(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Rose Kaiza –vs- Angelo Mpanju Kaiza
    (2009) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review of orders of the Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jabeth Investment Limited v National Environment Management Authority Kilifi County & another [2020] KEELC 3010 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2019 (in suit before the Environment and Land Court, Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3010/eng@2020-04-29

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