Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review Motion dated 16th September 2019 (Eldoret)· [2021] KEELC 4758 (KLR)

Republic v Principal Magistrate's Court at Eldoret; Philemon Kemboi Kitum & 2 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte Kenya Forest Service [2021] KEELC 4758 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
2 March 2021
4,747 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court cancelled magistrate orders allowing charcoal transport because traders skipped the dispute-resolution process the Forest Act requires them to follow first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Forest Service, as ex parte applicant, moved the High Court at Eldoret by judicial review seeking to quash three rulings of Principal Magistrate Hon. Naomi Wairimu in Eldoret CM's Miscellaneous Civil Nos. 30 of 2019, 46 of 2019 and 80 of 2019, in which the subordinate court granted the interested parties orders permitting the production and transportation of charcoal for one year. The applicant argued that the statutory mandate to issue charcoal movement permits under Regulation 4 of the Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009 lies with the Service, that the subordinate court acted without jurisdiction since no dispute existed and the dispute resolution mechanism in section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 was bypassed, and that it was denied a hearing. The interested parties countered that they had applied for permits and been refused, that they harvested from private farms exempted from the logging moratorium, and that magistrates' courts had jurisdiction under section 9 of the Magistrates' Court Act. The court held that although magistrates' courts can hear Article 162(2) environmental and land disputes, the respondent lacked first-instance jurisdiction because the interested parties failed to exhaust the statutory dispute mechanisms, contrary to the exhaustion doctrine. The court also noted that the declaratory relief sought could not issue in judicial review. The application was allowed: certiorari quashed all three impugned rulings, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Prohibition and the declaration were not granted in the final orders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court to grant charcoal movement permits

Holding

Although magistrates' courts have jurisdiction over Article 162(2) environmental and land disputes, the respondent magistrate lacked jurisdiction in the first instance because the statutory dispute resolution framework under section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act was not used.

Reasoning

The court accepted that magistrates' courts may hear Article 162(2) disputes under section 9 of the Magistrates' Court Act. However, section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act requires forest disputes to go first to the lowest devolved structure, then the National Environment Tribunal, with appeal to the Environment and Land Court. The interested parties bypassed this framework, so the subordinate court had no jurisdiction in the first instance.

p. 6
02

Exhaustion of alternative remedies

Holding

The interested parties should have pursued the administrative and statutory dispute mechanisms in section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act and section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act before moving the court.

Reasoning

Section 70 provides an elaborate procedure: lowest devolved structure, then the National Environment Tribunal, then appeal to the Environment and Land Court. There was no evidence the interested parties attempted these procedures. The Court of Appeal's exhaustion doctrine in Muthinja Kabiru requires courts to be fora of last resort, and courts have struck out suits where prescribed procedures were ignored.

p. 6
03

Availability of the declaratory relief in judicial review

Holding

The declaration sought could not be granted in judicial review proceedings.

Reasoning

Citing Sangani Investment Limited, section 8 of the Law Reform Act limits judicial review orders to mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. A declaration requires viva voce evidence and determination on the merits, whereas judicial review concerns only the decision-making process, not the merits.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A declaration cannot be granted in judicial review proceedings because judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits.
  • Where a statute prescribes a dispute resolution mechanism, it must be exhausted before the High Court's jurisdiction is invoked.
  • A subordinate court cannot assume jurisdiction in the absence of a dispute and where the statutory framework for forest disputes has been bypassed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of Certiorari quashing the Ruling and order of the Principal Magistrate, Hon. Naomi Wairimu, in Eldoret CM's Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30 of 2019, Philemon Kemboi Kitum v Chief Conservator of Forests made on 6th May 2019
  2. 2.An order of Certiorari quashing the Ruling and order of the Principal Magistrate, Hon. Naomi Wairimu, in Eldoret CM's Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 46 of 2019, Benjamin Cheboi v Chief Conservator of Forests made on 20th June 2019
  3. 3.An order of Certiorari quashing the Ruling and order of the Principal Magistrate, Hon. Naomi Wairimu, in Eldoret CM's Miscellaneous Civil Suit No. 80 of 2019, Elijah K. Kibet v Chief Conservator of Forests made on 14th August 2019
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 69
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 72
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 165(3), 165(5)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159
  • Forest Conservation and Management ActNo. 34 of 2016, sections 70, 77(e)
  • Forests Act, 2005No. 3 of 2005 (repealed)
  • Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009Regulations 4(1), 4(2), 14(1)
  • Environment and Land Court Actsections 13, 26
  • Fair Administrative Actions Actsections 4, 7, 9(2) and (3)
  • Magistrates' Court ActNo. 26 of 2015, sections 7(1), 9
  • County Governments ActNo. 17 of 2012
  • Law Reform Actsection 8
  • Industrial Court Actsection 29

Cases cited (14)

  • Pastor (Pastoli) vs Kabale District Local Government Council & Others
    [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Council of Civil Unions Vs Minister for the Civil Service
    [1985] C 2
  • An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club
    [1963] EA 478
  • In Republic Vs Judicial Service Commission ex parte Pareno
    [2004] 1 KLR 203-209
  • Daniel Nyongesa & 4 Others vs Egerton University
    Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1989
  • Sangani Investment Limited vs Officer in charge, Nairobi Remand and Allocation Prison
    (2007) 1 EA 354
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd
    Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001
  • Kenya National Examinations Council vs. Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & Others
    Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996 eKLR
  • Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch v Malindi Law Society & 6 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Alice Mweru Ngai v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Royal Reserve Management Company Ltd v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • Robai Kadili Agufa & another v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. (1)(1) Para 60
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Law Reform Act (order of certiorari), sections 8 and 9

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Principal Magistrate's Court at Eldoret; Philemon Kemboi Kitum & 2 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte Kenya Forest Service [2021] KEELC 4758 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Motion dated 16th September 2019 (Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4758/eng@2021-03-02

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