Registered Officials and Trustees of Jesus Celebration Centre v National Environment Management Authority & 6 others

after the 28th August 2010 without being subjected to public participation pursuant to Articles 69 (1)(d) and 118(l)(b) and 262(7) of the Constitution of Kenya. b. A declaration that The National Management and Coordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) (Control Regulations) 2009 are inconsistent with Article 32 of the Constitution of Kenya in so far as they seek to limit the full enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms conferred upon the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of Kenya and as provided in the Holy bible. c. A declaration that the God worshipped by the petitioners and who is recorded in the Holy Bible loves noise, shouting, and use of music by those who worship Him in truth and in Spirit. d. A declaration that a denial of the right to use a public address system, make noise, shout, use music equipment such as keyboard, guitars, drum sets and such other instruments while worshipping their God is a denial and breach of fundamental freedoms and rights for Pentecostal churches as guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution and the Christian Bible. e. An order of Judicial Review in the form of orders of certiorari quashing The National Management and Coordination (Noise and ExcessiveVibrationPollution) (Control Regulations) 2009. f. An order of Judicial Reviewin the form of orders of certiorari calling Net Appeal No. E007 Of 2023 - Mombasa Darajani Hotel Ltd -Vs- Nema Jesus Celebration Centre Life Transforming Church Mountain Of Salvation for quashing. g. An order certifying that the matters raised in this Petition are those contemplated under Article 165(4) of the Constitution and the le be forwarded to the Honourable Chief Justice to constitute an uneven bench of not less than three judges to hear and determine the Petition. h. There do issue an order of judicial review in the form of orders of prohibition barring the 3rd Respondent from hearing appeals founded on alleged violations of the National Management and Coordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) (Control Regulations) 2009. i. Costs of the petition. j. Such other orders as this honourable court shall deem just. 2. The petition was based upon the grounds set out in the body of the petition and the contents of the supporting adavit and supplementary adavit sworn by Dr. Charles K. Muoki on 10.09.2024 and 19.02.2025 respectively. The Petitioners pleaded that the National Management and Coordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) Control Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) were unconstitutional for allegedly violating their freedom of worship and for having been implemented without undergoing the process of public participation. They were also aggrieved by the judgment of the National Environment Tribunal (NET) dated 19.11.2024 in NET Appeal No. E007 of 2023 – Mombasa Hotel Ltd vs NEMA and Jesus Celebration Centre (the appeal) in which they were ordered to abate noise pollution by sound proong their church. 3. The Petitioner also led a further adavit sworn on 28.04.2026 by Joseph Manzi Munyithia in support of the petition. The purpose of the further adavit was to notify the court that the petitioner’s appeal against the decision of the NET was allowed by this court on 19.03.2026 whereby the court found that NET had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute which was placed before it since the function of controlling noise and vibration pollution was no longer within the province of the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5779/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 4

4. The record shows that the 1st respondent led a notice of preliminary objection dated 04.11.2024 to the petition. The 1st respondent objected to the petition on the ground that it violated the doctrines of exhaustion and constitutional avoidance. In particular, it was contended that there was a pending petition before the NET on the issues in dispute herein hence that was the right forum for ventilation of the petitioner’s grievances. 5. The 2nd and 3rd respondents led a replying adavit sworn on 25.10.2024 by Belinda Okello who was then the secretary of NET. She deposed that when the Tribunal received a notice of appeal on 08.09.2023 it processed the appeal in accordance with the law and established procedures whereby all the concerned parties were accorded an opportunity of being heard before the decision of the tribunal was ultimately rendered. It was contended that at all material times the Tribunal observed the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution in handling the dispute. 6. The record shows that the 1st respondent preliminary objection dated 04.11.2024 was canvassed through written submissions and a ruling thereon delivered on 06.11.2025. By the said ruling, the court upheld the preliminary objection only in part and directed the petitioners to amend their petition to exclude any challenge to the Tribunal’s decision since the decision was the subject of a separate appeal pursuant to Section 130 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). 7. When the petition was listed for directions it was directed that it shall be canvassed through written submissions only. The parties were consequently given timelines within which to le and exchange their written submissions. The record shows that the Petitioners led submissions dated 20th August 2025 but the Respondents’ submissions were not on record by the time of preparation of the Judgment. 8. The court has considered the material and submissions on record. There is no doubt from the material on record that what triggered the petition was the Tribunal’s decision dated 19.11.2024 whereby the Tribunal directed the Petitioner to sound proof their church premises in order to abate noise pollution pursuant to the National Management and Co-ordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) Control Regulations, 2009. 9. The material on record shows that the petitioner challenged the said decision by ling an appeal as well as the instant petition challenging the constitutionality of the impugned Regulations. The record further shows that the petitioner’s appeal was heard rst and allowed by this court vide a Judgement dated 19.03.2026. By the said Judgment, the court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before it because the issue of control of noise pollution was no longer within the mandate of NEMA as envisaged under Sections 129 of EMCA. 10. Following the setting aside of the Judgment of the Tribunal the court is of the view that the Petitioner is no longer aggrieved by the matters which were in dispute before the Tribunal or this court sitting as an appellate court. The Petitioner’s grievances were adequately resolved in Mombasa ELCLA E051 of 2024 whereby the court set aside the Judgment of the Tribunal. 11. In the premises, the court is not satised that there is a genuine or bonade live issue or grievance which the Petitioner can legitimately ventilate in the instant petition, unless the Petitioner wants to prosecute the petition for academic purposes. It has been held that legal proceedings should be conned to real and live issues only. In the case of Attorney General & 2 others vs Ndii & 79 others; (Amicus Curiae) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5779/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 4

(Petition 12, 11, & 13 of 2021 (Consolidated) [2022] KESC 8 (KLR) (31 March 2022) (Judgment), it was held inter alia that: “ 1710. The High Court of South Africa in Afriform NPC and others v. Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and others 3 All SA 663 (GP) at para. 104 to 109 further discussed the doctrine of justiciability, mootness and ripeness and held as follows: “The parties’ debate about mootness engages the broader question of justiciability. Not every constitutional argument raised by litigants is deserving of judicial consideration. The doctrine of justiciability permits courts to avoid rendering decisions where an insucient legal interest is impacted. Justiciability is not a legal concept with xed content. Courts apply it in response to subtle pressures regarding the appropriateness of the issues for decision and the actual hardship to the litigants of denying them the relief sought. The doctrine teaches that the courts should decide only cases entailing a real, earnest and vital controversy between litigants and not entertain merely hypothetical cases or cases that are only of academic interest. The business of a court is generally retrospective; it deals with situations or problems that have already crystallised, and not with prospective or hypothetical ones. Any claim to be justiciable must present a real and substantial controversy which unequivocally calls for the adjudication of the rights asserted. Litigants should not approach a court if they have not been actually subjected to prejudice or face the real threat of prejudice as a result of legislation or conduct alleged to be unconstitutional or illegal.” 12. The court is of the opinion that the instant petition was precipitated by the Judgment of the Tribunal which applied the impugned Regulations and as a consequence ordered the Petitioner to mitigate excessive noise pollution by sound proong their church. That decision was set aside by this court in its appellate capacity on 19.03.2026. Thus the decision of the Tribunal is no longer binding upon the Petitioners. As such, the court is of the view that the question of the constitutionality of the Regulations is not yet ripe for determination. At least, it does not call for determination in the instant petition. 13. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court is not satised that the issues raised in the instant petition are ripe for adjudication and determination in the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the petition dated 10.09.2024 and amended on 18.02.2025 is hereby struck out with no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 Y. M. ANGIMA JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Umara holding brief for Mr. Munyithia for the Petitioner Ms. Kahuria for the 1st Respondent Mr. Kemei for the Attorney General for 2nd and 3rd Respondent No appearance for the 1st to 4th Interested Party Court Assistant: Hinga https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5779/eng@2026-09-24 4

page 4 of 4