Mathu & 2 Others (All jointly suing as and on behalf of Kyuna Neighbours Association (KNA)) v National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) & 2 others

The court held that appellate jurisdiction over tribunal decisions is conferred by section 13(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 130(1) of EMCA. Relying on Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and Samuel Kamau Macharia, jurisdiction flows from statute; since the applicant was aggrieved by the grant of a NEMA licence, section 129(1) applied and the tribunal had jurisdiction, so the appeal properly lies to this court.

The court adopted the expanded locus standi in NET vs Overlook Management Ltd, under which a party aggrieved by events in section 129(1)(a)-(e) may appeal as of right, while others aggrieved by NEMA decisions may appeal under 129(2) without demonstrating a right or interest in land. Since the applicant was aggrieved by issuance of the licence, the preliminary objection failed.

Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) and Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court found substantial loss and no unreasonable delay; the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay. Environmental harm from felling decades-old trees and excavation is irreversible and not compensable in damages, whereas the developer's harm is quantifiable, so the balance favoured preservation pending the appeal.

The court held that the 2nd respondent's arguments on the jurisdiction of the tribunal vis-à-vis the Planning Liaison Committee, and whether the tribunal was right to strike out the appeal as filed out of time, could only be ventilated at the hearing of the appeal, not on an interlocutory stay application.