Amos Thuranira M'Rinjiru v Kenya Forest Service & others
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for conservatory orders
The petitioner failed to disclose a prima facie case given the conceded lawful licences
The court found that the special use licence under Section 46 of the FCMA and the EIA licence were conceded as regular and lawful by the respondents. No scientific material, adverse reports or formal complaints were produced to show breach of the right to a clean environment, so the requisite prima facie case was not established.
Burden of proof in environmental claims
The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving immediate and apparent irreparable harm
The petitioner relied only on photographs and assertions of illegality. The court held that a court of law acts on tangible and cogent evidence, and the petitioner had not demonstrated a single complaint letter to the forester in charge challenging the quarrying activities from 2014 to present.
Whether the petition would be rendered nugatory
The petition would not be rendered nugatory if the orders were not granted
Applying the tests in Munya and Nubian Rights Forum, the court found no real danger or prejudice to the petitioner pending the main hearing, and the petition would survive without interim preservation of the quarry status quo.
Legal principles established
#- A court of law acts on tangible and cogent evidence; the applicant for a conservatory order bears the burden of proving prima facie irreparable harm to the environment
- Conservatory orders bear a public law connotation and are granted bearing in mind public interest and constitutional values
Court orders
#- 1.The petitioner's application for conservatory orders is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 2.The interim conservatory orders issued on 9.5.2024 are vacated or set aside
- 3.The respondents are directed to file their substantive responses to the petition within 30 days
- 4.The petition to be listed for hearing on a priority basis
- 5.Mention for directions on 18.7.2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(3), 42 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Rule 23 of the Mutunga Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Peter v Chief Conservator of Forests & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6788 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6788 (KLR)6 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos Thuranira M'Rinjiru v Kenya Forest Service & others", Case Analysis (2024). Constitutional Petition (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4833/eng@2024-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.