Siklieh (Suing as the Chairman of Karen Langata District Association) v Karuna Holdings Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E060 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled it can hear an environmental rights petition even when an appeal body exists but cannot actually function.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to exhaust the PLUPA appeal mechanism to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee renders the petition incompetent
No - the alternative remedy was neither effective nor sufficient, particularly as the Nairobi Liaison Committee had downed tools since November 2024 for lack of facilitation, and the petition raises constitutional and environmental rights violations.
The court accepted that PLUPA provides an appeal mechanism but held that exhaustion applies only where the alternative remedy is available, effective and sufficient. The Liaison Committee's work stoppage since November 2024 meant any appeal would not be heard. Moreover, the Committee lacks jurisdiction to address alleged constitutional violations of the right to a clean and healthy environment, which form part of the reliefs sought. The petition therefore properly invokes the ELC's original jurisdiction.
Whether the absence of a provision for extension of time before the Liaison Committee renders the remedy ineffective
No - absence of a power to extend time is not the measure of the body's effectiveness; the real question is whether the body has jurisdiction over the alleged constitutional violations.
The court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on the absence of an extension-of-time provision as the test of effectiveness, redirecting the inquiry to whether the statutory body is bestowed with jurisdiction to address constitutional violations. This framing shifted the analysis from procedural convenience to substantive jurisdiction, aligning with the requirement that alternative remedies be effective and sufficient.
Whether Buku v National Environmental Authority applies to the present petition
Distinguished - Buku concerned ordinary administrative disputes without primary allegations of constitutional or environmental rights violations.
The court distinguished the authority relied on by the respondents because the present petition goes beyond procedural irregularities and seeks protection of fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment. In such 'mixed' disputes, the existence of statutory remedies does not oust the ELC's original jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies requires that alternative remedies be available, effective and sufficient; where the statutory body cannot hear the dispute, the ELC's original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) is not ousted.
- Where a petition primarily alleges violation of fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment, a statutory dispute resolution mechanism does not bar the petition.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 16th August 2025 is dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Siklieh (Suing as the Chairman of Karen Langata District Association) v Karuna Holdings Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E060 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/324/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.