Mathu, Shah & Ndegwa (All Jointly Suing as and on Behalf of Kyuna Neighbours Association - KNA) & another v National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) & 2 others; Director General, Nairobi Metropolitan Services (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E075 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 663 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that appeals to the National Environment Tribunal must be filed within 60 days of a NEMA licence, or they die for lack of jurisdiction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection before the Tribunal was based on contested facts
The objection was a pure question of law; classification of the appeal under Section 129(1) or (2) of EMCA could be resolved on the pleadings
The court held that whether the appeal fell under Section 129(1) or 129(2) of EMCA was not contingent on contested facts requiring evidentiary determination; it was a question of law resolvable by objective examination of the pleadings. Jurisdiction and statutory timelines are classic examples of pure questions of law suitable for determination by way of a preliminary objection under the Mukisa Biscuits test.
Whether the appeal fell under Section 129(1) or Section 129(2) of EMCA
The appeal fell under Section 129(1) EMCA; the court maintained its position in the Mathu case that Section 129(1) is not limited to participants in the licensing process
The court reaffirmed its exposition in the Mathu case that the 2015 amendment expanded locus standi under Section 129(1) to any aggrieved person, and respectfully disagreed with Prof Albert Mumma and Simba Corporation, which tied Section 129(1) to participation. Since the Appellants' grievances arose directly from issuance of the NEMA license, Section 129(1) applied.
Whether the appeal was statute-barred
The appeal was filed out of the 60-day period prescribed by Section 129(1) EMCA; time ran from issuance of the license on 10th December 2021 and lapsed on 7th February 2022
Time was computed under Section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act; the exclusion of days applies only to periods not exceeding six days. The civil court vacation rule was inapplicable to EMCA appeals. Filing on 21st February 2022 exceeded the 60-day limit, leaving the Tribunal without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or extend time.
Legal principles established
#- An 'aggrieved person' under Section 129(1)(a) EMCA is not limited to persons who participated in the licensing process; it includes any person likely to be affected directly or indirectly by NEMA's decision, while Section 129(2) deals with other decisions of the Director-General, Authority or its agents not covered under Section 129(1).
- Excluded days are only disregarded when computing time not exceeding six days under Section 57(d) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act.
- Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules on computation of time is inapplicable to appeals under EMCA.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- National Environment Tribunal
- NET Appeal 008 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read together with Section 13(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 130 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathu, Shah & Ndegwa (All Jointly Suing as and on Behalf of Kyuna Neighbours Association - KNA) & another v National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) & 2 others; Director General, Nairobi Metropolitan Services (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E075 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Appeal (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/663/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.