Riunga v Director General National Environment Management Authority & another (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3624 (KLR)

The Court perused the record and found the application was expressly brought under Section 129(2) of EMCA, Rules 10 and 46 of the EIA Regulations and constitutional articles, seeking extension of time to file an appeal. Since no appeal was on file, the Tribunal erred in framing the matter as an appeal. However, the mischaracterisation did not assist the Appellant, because the substance of her claim - challenge to issuance of an EIA licence - fell under Section 129(1), where time is not extendable.

The Court referred back to its earlier judgment in the same matter delivered on 20th December 2022, which had held that although the Director General is bound by the FAA Act, there was no evidence that the Appellant engaged the 1st Respondent and her grievance went unaddressed under that Act. That finding was adopted as resolving the fair administrative action issue against the Appellant.

The Appellant did not attach the decision of 30th July 2021 she relied on, so the Court considered only the decision evidenced by the EIA licence issued on 9th November 2021. That decision - issuance of an EIA licence - is appealable only under Section 129(1) of EMCA, and following Simba Corporation and Runda Association, courts and the Tribunal have no power to extend the statutory 60-day timeline for such appeals. The Appellant was also found to have participated in the EIA process, and EMCA imposes no duty on NEMA to communicate licence decisions to the public.