Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review application arising from NET 38/2020; Notice of Motion dated 20th April, 2021· [2021] KEELC 3316 (KLR)

Kiliavo Fresh Limited v National Environmental Tribunal [2021] KEELC 3316 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (High Court sitting at Kajiado)
10 May 2021
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
1,745 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed two conservation groups to join a judicial review case but refused a vague status quo order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2021 by intended interested parties, the Conservation Alliance of Kenya and the Big Life Foundation, brought under Article 48 of the Constitution, Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicants sought leave to join judicial review proceedings as first and second interested parties, 14 days to file statements of response, and an order maintaining the status quo in respect of orders issued by the National Environment Tribunal on 23rd March 2021 in NET 38/2020. The applicants deposed, through Steve Itela of CAK and Benson Leiyan of Big Life Foundation, that the judicial review orders were precipitated by their successful application to the NET, which the ex parte applicant failed to enjoin in the suit. The ex parte applicant opposed, relying on Francis Karioki Muruatetu. The Court, Christine Ochieng J, framed two issues: whether the intended interested parties should be enjoined, and whether the status quo should be maintained. Applying the Muruatetu parameters and the Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance definition, the Court held that the intended interested parties have a stake in the dispute, as their complaints to NET are the foundation of the proceedings. Joinder was accordingly allowed, with 14 days to file responses. However, the status quo prayer was declined as omnibus and unspecified. Prayers 1, 2 and 3 were allowed and prayer 4 refused, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Intended Interested Parties should be enjoined in the suit

Holding

The Court allowed the joinder, finding the Intended Interested Parties have a stake in the dispute because their complaints to the NET are the foundation of the dispute

Reasoning

The Court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parameters laid down in Francis Karioki Muruatetu and Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance. It found it not denied that the Intended Interested Parties made the application before NET which culminated in the decision now sought to be reviewed, and that the ex parte applicant never enjoined them in these proceedings. Their complaints to NET form the foundation of the dispute, giving them a recognizable stake warranting joinder.

p. 3
02

Whether status quo should be maintained in respect of the NET orders of 23rd March 2021

Holding

Declined because the applicants did not specify the status quo sought and the order was omnibus

Reasoning

The Court found the Intended Interested Parties had not informed the Court of the specific status quo they wished maintained. The Court also agreed with the Ex parte Applicant that the prayer was an omnibus order incapable of precise definition or enforcement, and therefore declined to grant it.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings and will be affected by the Court's decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Conservation Alliance of Kenya granted leave to join as first interested party in the suit
  2. 2.The Big Life Foundation granted leave to join as the second interested party
  3. 3.The Interested Parties granted 14 days to file their statements of response and incidental documents
  4. 4.Prayer No. 4 (status quo order) declined
  5. 5.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance V Mumo Matemu & 5 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Peter Oduor Ngoge v. Francis Ole Kaparo & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2012
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 48 of the Constitution, Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiliavo Fresh Limited v National Environmental Tribunal [2021] KEELC 3316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review application arising from NET 38/2020; Notice of Motion dated 20th April, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3316/eng@2021-05-10

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