Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutJudicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2021)· [2022] KEELC 2605 (KLR)

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)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2022
2,043 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling by G.M.A Ong'ondo, Judge, of the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay on a preliminary objection by the 1st respondent, Ministry of East African Community (EAC) and Regional Development, against a judicial review application by the ex-parte applicant, Juma Robinson Jalango, the Project Manager of the Kimira-Oluch Small Holder Farm Project (KOSFIP). The applicant sought certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent, conveyed in a letter dated 24th August 2021, transferring management and implementation of KOSFIP to the Lake Basin Development Authority, certiorari to quash the transfer and handing over report, and mandamus compelling the Principal Secretary to release Kshs 45,400,000.00 being the first half-year project allocation. The preliminary objection raised twin grounds: lack of jurisdiction, since the dispute concerned transfer of management between government agencies and did not fall under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act or concern environment and land; and lack of capacity, the applicant's contract having ended on 30th June 2021. In submissions, the applicant argued the objection failed the Mukisa Biscuits threshold and that capacity required factual interrogation. The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits definition, and the Supreme Court authorities on jurisdiction including Samwel Kamau Macharia and Karisa Chengo, holding that its jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the Act does not extend to this dispute. The court upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the judicial review application, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, guided by Samwel Kamau Macharia. Capacity was not determined since, jurisdiction being wanting, all other issues cannot have any meaning.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the judicial review application

Holding

The court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned management, implementation and allocation of a farm project, not environment and land

Reasoning

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.

p. 5
02

Capacity of the ex-parte applicant to bring the judicial review application

Holding

The court declined to determine capacity substantively because, jurisdiction being wanting, all other issues cannot have any meaning

Reasoning

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.

p. 5
03

Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuits threshold

Holding

The objection qualified as a point of law that would dispose of the suit and was upheld as meritorious

Reasoning

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.

p. 4

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. 1.The 1st respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 17th November 2021 and filed on 18th November 2021 is upheld
  2. 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. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 60(1)(g)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(c)
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (2011)Section 13

Cases cited (8)

  • Kakuta Maimai Hamisi-vs-Peris Pesi Tobiko and 2 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited-vs-West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • Samwel Kamau Macharia and another-vs-Kenya Commercial Bank Limited and others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S"-vs-Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Attorney General and another-vs-Andrew Maina Githinji and another
    (2016) eKLR
  • Benson Ambuti Adega and 2 others-vs-Kibos Distillers Limited and 5 others
    (2020) eKLR
  • Republic-vs-Karisa Chengo and others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Daniel Kaloki Kioko and another-vs-Willy Muasya Kioko and another
    (2009) eKLR
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.