Republic v Narok County Government & another; Adventures Aloft Kenya Limited & 2 others (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4355 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed Narok County's approval of a new Maasai Mara hot air balloon business because the county failed to follow its own management plan or hear affected operators.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Ex Parte Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 2nd March 2026
- 2.Whether the Respondent's decision contained in the letter dated 13th August 2025 approving the Interested Party's request to operate a Hot Air Balloon Business within the Maasai Mara National Reserve was unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair
- 3.Whether the Ex Parte Applicants have established grounds for the grant of the Judicial Review orders sought
- 4.Whether the declaratory reliefs sought are available in Judicial Review proceedings
- 5.Who should bear the costs of the Application
Key legal issues
#Limitation - whether the judicial review was filed outside the six-month period under Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
No - leave was granted on 2nd March 2026 and was never set aside or appealed; the collateral attack on the grant of leave was impermissible
The Court noted the Chamber Summons for leave was considered and granted on 2nd March 2026, and the Interested Party neither sought review nor appealed. Once granted and un-varied, the leave order remained valid, so the objection that the proceedings were statute-barred failed.
Exhaustion of alternative remedies under Sections 88 and 89 of the County Governments Act and Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Exhaustion doctrine acknowledged, but the County grievance mechanisms were not shown capable of granting certiorari and prohibition or quashing the impugned decision
The Court accepted the doctrine but held that the Interested Party had not demonstrated that the internal petition and grievance mechanisms could grant the public law remedies sought, so they were not an effective alternative remedy ousting the supervisory jurisdiction.
Forum shopping and abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings
Rejected - previous proceedings did not conclusively determine the legality of the impugned 13th August 2025 decision and no plea of res judicata was formally raised or demonstrated
The Court acknowledged prior litigation existed but held that mere existence of previous or parallel proceedings does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction; the Interested Party failed to show the impugned decision's legality had been finally determined elsewhere.
Whether the approval contravened Chapter 4.6 of the Management Plan and was procedurally fair
The Respondent failed to demonstrate how the approval was reconciled with the acknowledged prohibition on new concessions, and failed to show procedural fairness under Article 47 and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
The Respondent admitted the Management Plan bars new concessions but offered no material showing it analysed the inconsistency before approving; nor did it show the Ex Parte Applicants were notified, heard or invited to make representations. Prior KCAA participation could not substitute for the Respondent's own statutory obligations. The decision was therefore procedurally improper and liable to be quashed.
Whether a fresh concession or continuation of an existing 2018 approval was granted
Left undecided - contested facts requiring oral evidence fall outside judicial review; the Court confined itself to the legality of the process
The Court noted neither the application nor the approval letter described the approval as a renewal, and the alleged 2018 approval was disputed (the Interested Party having been incorporated in 2021), but held that definitive findings of fact on contested evidence are outside the province of judicial review.
Availability of declaratory reliefs in judicial review
Not available - declined
The Court concurred with the Respondent that Order 53 judicial review remedies are traditionally certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; Article 23 declarations require a constitutional petition, which this was not.
Whether an Order of Prohibition should issue
Yes, in a qualified form - prohibiting approvals inconsistent with the Management Plan, the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, without usurping the Respondent's statutory mandate
The Court agreed it should not disable a public authority from performing its mandate, but held that judicial review ensures powers are exercised lawfully; a prohibition limited to approvals inconsistent with the Plan merely requires lawful exercise of the mandate.
Legal principles established
#- Once leave has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction and not set aside or varied, it remains valid and binding, and a party cannot at the substantive hearing invite the court to sit on appeal against its own interlocutory decision
- Where a public authority departs from an established policy or statutory management framework, it bears the obligation of explaining the basis for the departure
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- Declaratory reliefs are not available in judicial review proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53
Court orders
#- 1.An Order of Certiorari removing into the Court and quashing the Respondent's decision contained in the letter dated 13th August 2025 approving the Interested Party's request to operate a Hot Air Balloon Business within the Maasai Mara National Reserve
- 2.An Order of Prohibition restraining the Respondent from granting approvals for the operation of Hot Air Balloon Businesses within the Maasai Mara National Reserve in a manner inconsistent with the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan 2023 - 2032, the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 3.Declaratory prayers declined
- 4.Costs of the Judicial Review Application awarded to the Ex Parte Applicants, to be borne jointly and severally by the Respondent and the Interested Party
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap. 26 and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2020
Relief refused
#Declaration that by operation of legitimate expectation no new approvals would be granted during the lifespan of the Management Plan
Declarations are not remedies available in Judicial Review proceedings under the Law Reform Act and Order 53; such remedies are confined to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
Declaration that the impugned approval was actuated by ulterior motives and violated the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act
Declined for the same reason - declaratory reliefs lie in constitutional petitions, not in Order 53 judicial review
Costs
The Ex Parte Applicants shall have the costs of the instant Judicial Review Application dated 2nd March 2026, to be borne jointly and severally by the Respondent and the Interested Party.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it remains a valid and binding order of the Court. The Interested Party cannot, at the hearing of the substantive Judicial Review Motion, invite this Court to sit on an appeal against its own interlocutory decision granting leave.
this court is not persuaded that the available internal mechanisms constituted an effective alternative remedy capable of ousting this Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
the mere existence of previous or parallel proceedings does not, without more, deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with the procedural requirements imposed by Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, in arriving at the impugned decision.
Where a public authority departs from an established policy or statutory management framework, it bears the obligation of explaining the basis upon which such departure is justified.
the prayers seeking declaratory reliefs are not available in the present Judicial Review proceedings, and are therefore declined, and the same cannot be granted.
A. An Order of Certiorari, is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the Respondent's decision contained in the letter dated 13th August 2025, approving the request by the Interested Party, to operate a Hot Air Balloon Business, within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
B. An Order of Prohibition, is hereby issued restraining the Respondent from granting approvals for the operation of Hot Air Balloon Businesses within the Maasai Mara National Reserve, in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan 2023 - 2032, the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
D.The Ex Parte Applicants shall have the costs of the instant Judicial Review Application dated 2nd March 2026, to be borne jointly and severally by the Respondent and the Interested Party.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment references a '2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit' in NCART Appeal No. E001 of 2025 although only one Respondent (County Government of Narok) is party to these proceedings
The identity of the Ex Parte Applicants is never expressly stated in the coram or opening; the 1st Ex Parte Applicant's director is named (Paramjeet Mhajan) but the full list of applicants must be inferred from related litigation references
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Narok County Government & another; Adventures Aloft Kenya Limited & 2 others (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4355 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLJR E002 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4355/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.