Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC LC PETITION NO. E001 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 894 (KLR)

Katam (Suing on his Behalf and on Behalf of the Members of Elmara Forest Investors &Timber Millers) v Kenya Forest Service; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 894 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
10 February 2026
LWL. N. Waithaka
2,048 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a forest tender challenge because the petitioners had to first use the dispute process in the Forest Conservation and Management Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Emmanuel Cheruiyot Katam, purporting to act for members of Elmara Forest Investors & Timber Millers (registered under the 'Small' category, though elsewhere described as 'Medium'), filed a petition and notice of motion dated 23rd April 2025 seeking an injunction to restrain the Kenya Forest Service, and specifically the Chief Conservator of Forests, from signing, sealing or completing tender Bid No. KFS/DISP/108/2024-2025 for the sale of forest plantation materials in Elgeyo Marakwet County. He complained of discrimination against small/medium millers, failure of disclosure of material tender facts, and absence of public participation. The Respondent, through its Ag. Principal Supply Chain Officer, replied that the advertisement deliberately targeted large millers for fairness, that no bids were received and the tender was closed, that the trees remained intact and no contract had been signed. The Respondent argued the application was moot, that no prima facie case or irreparable harm was shown, and that the claim was quantifiable commercial loss. The Court, rather than deciding the interlocutory issues on their merits, examined Section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, which requires disputes over forest conservation, management and utilization to be referred first to the lowest devolved structure and then to the National Environment Tribunal, with appeal thereafter to the Environment and Land Court. Applying Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume and Geoffrey Muthiga Kabiru, the Court held that the statutory mechanism must be exhausted before invoking the Court's jurisdiction, and that as a court of first instance it lacked jurisdiction. The Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it together with the application, with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes regulated under the Forest Conservation and Management Act

Holding

The Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear the dispute; Section 70 of the Act channels such disputes first to the lowest devolved structure and then to the National Environment Tribunal, with appeal thereafter to the Environment and Land Court

Reasoning

The Court examined Section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, which requires disputes arising in respect of forest conservation, management and utilization to be referred in the first instance to the lowest possible devolved structure and, if unresolved, to the National Environment Tribunal, with appeal lying to this Court. Since the petition concerned disposal of forest plantation materials, the applicant was required to exhaust that mechanism first.

p. 13
02

Whether the application for an injunction/conservatory order could be granted

Holding

The application was dismissed because the Court declined to entertain the underlying petition for want of jurisdiction

Reasoning

Having found that the Court lacked original jurisdiction over the dispute as a court of first instance, the Court declined to entertain both the petition and the notice of motion dated 23rd April 2025, dismissing both together with costs to the Respondent. The merits of the prima facie case, irreparable harm and public participation arguments were therefore not determined.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute establishes a dispute resolution mechanism, that mechanism must be exhausted before resort is had to the courts
  • Courts are fora of last resort and should not be approached before an existing statutory dispute resolution mechanism is exhausted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition and the accompanying notice of motion dated 23rd April, 2025 are dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Forest Conservation and Management ActSection 70(1) and 70(2)
  • County Government Act(referred to generally)
  • Environment and Land Court Act(referred to generally)

Cases cited (3)

  • Speaker of the National Assembly v. Karume
    (1992) KLR 21
  • Geoffrey Muthiga Kabiru & 2 Others vs. Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others
    (2015) e KLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    (2014) e KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) Environment and Land Court; Section 70 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act (dispute resolution mechanism)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Katam (Suing on his Behalf and on Behalf of the Members of Elmara Forest Investors &Timber Millers) v Kenya Forest Service; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 894 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC PETITION NO. E001 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/894/eng@2026-02-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.