Jalango (The Project Manager, Kimira-Oluoch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project (KOSFIP) v Ministry of East African Community (EAC) & Regional Development & another; County Governement of Homa Bay & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the judicial review application
The court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned management, implementation and allocation of a farm project, not environment and land
The court considered Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act which define its remit. The application concerned transfer of management and implementation of KOSFIP between government agencies and funding allocations, including recurrent and development expenditure. Since that subject matter does not fall within the environment and land jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and the statute, the court held it was devoid of jurisdiction.
Capacity of the ex-parte applicant to bring the judicial review application
The court declined to determine capacity substantively because, jurisdiction being wanting, all other issues cannot have any meaning
The respondents argued the applicant's employment contract ended on 30th June 2021, while the applicant asserted he was still project manager of KOSFIP. The court noted the definitions of capacity in legal dictionaries but, relying on Daniel Kaloki Kioko and the Karisa Chengo and Lillian S decisions, held that where jurisdiction is wanting, all other issues, including capacity, become moot and cannot be meaningfully determined.
Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuits threshold
The objection qualified as a point of law that would dispose of the suit and was upheld as meritorious
The court cited the Mukisa Biscuits definition of a preliminary objection as a point of law pleaded or arising by clear implication from the pleadings which, if argued, would dispose of the suit, and noted from Kakuta Maimai Hamisi that such objections are threshold questions requiring definitive pronouncement. The jurisdictional ground was such a point of law and was upheld.
Legal principles established
#- A court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both, and a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law
- Where a court lacks jurisdiction, its decision is void rather than merely voidable and cannot found any legal proceedings
- Without jurisdiction a court has no power to take any further step in the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 17th November 2021 and filed on 18th November 2021 is upheld
- 2.The applicant's Judicial Review application by Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2021 and lodged on 1st November 2021 is struck out
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (2011)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jalango (The Project Manager, Kimira-Oluoch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project (KOSFIP) v Ministry of East African Community (EAC) & Regional Development & another; County Governement of Homa Bay & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2605/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.