Kiliavo Fresh Limited v National Environment Tribunal; Big Life Foundation & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 3843 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction: whether judicial review lies against a decision of the National Environment Tribunal
The court lacks jurisdiction; Section 130 of EMCA prescribes an appeal to the Environment and Land Court as the exclusive route, and that procedure must be strictly followed.
Section 130 of EMCA provides that any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Tribunal may, within thirty days, appeal to the Environment and Land Court. Relying on Mutanga Tea and Coffee and the Karume doctrine, the court held that where a specific dispute-resolution procedure is prescribed, it must be strictly observed. Judicial review was therefore an improper mode of attacking the tribunal's decision, ousting the court's jurisdiction.
Scope of tribunal immunity under Section 133 of EMCA
Immunity covers the chairperson and members individually, not the tribunal itself; joining the tribunal as a party is proper.
The court reasoned that Section 133 protects tribunal members for acts done in the discharge of their duties, but the tribunal as an institution is not immune from being sued. Since no individual member was a party to the proceedings, this objection failed and did not justify striking out the suit.
Whether the tribunal could lawfully dismiss the appeal for non-attendance
The court declined to determine this issue for want of a certified copy of the tribunal's proceedings and ruling.
The court held it lacked sufficient material to decide whether the tribunal properly dismissed the appeal for non-attendance, since only the record of the 26/4/2021 proceedings would reveal whether counsel was ready to proceed after an adjournment was refused. Having resolved the jurisdiction question, the remaining issues were treated as auxiliary and superfluous.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute prescribes a specific remedy, that remedy must be strictly followed; an appeal lies from the National Environment Tribunal to the Environment and Land Court, and judicial review is not an available route.
- Section 133 of EMCA's immunity from suit protects the chairperson and members of the tribunal personally, not the tribunal itself, which may properly be joined as a party.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the respondent dated 11/6/2021 is upheld
- 2.The suit is dismissed
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 130 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA); exclusive statutory appeal route to the Environment and Land Court from the National Environment Tribunal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiliavo Fresh Limited v National Environment Tribunal; Big Life Foundation & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 3843 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review No. 1 of 2021 (Kajiado). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3843/eng@2024-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.