[2019] KEELC 2374 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2374 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for review of the judgment, particularly due to the failure of the advocate to present evidence of public participation before the initial judgment. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the applicant for the advocate's mistake,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2374 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Carolyne Kerubo Omwoyo; Applicant: Yusufu Mahmoud Athman; Respondent: Abao Investments Ltd; Respondent: Uasin Gishu County Government; Respondent: National Environment and Management Authority
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 16 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Closure Order
Outcome
application for review allowed; closure order lifted pending audit; compliance report to be filed within 90 days; liberty to apply; no order as to costs
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Environmental Audit, Public Participation, Unfair Administrative Action, Judicial Review, Closure Orders
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Audit Public Participation Unfair Administrative Action Judicial Review Closure Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyne Kerubo Omwoyo

Applicant

Yusufu Mahmoud Athman

Applicant

Abao Investments Ltd

Respondent

Uasin Gishu County Government

Respondent

National Environment and Management Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Closure Order

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and vary its previous order of closure of the 1st respondent's plant pending an environmental audit.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause has been shown for review of the judgment limiting the operation period of the plant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be penalized for the advocate's failure to present evidence of public participation before judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for review of the judgment, particularly due to the failure of the advocate to present evidence of public participation before the initial judgment. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the applicant for the advocate's mistake, especially where evidence of compliance with public participation requirements was subsequently produced. Accordingly, the court reviewed its earlier order, lifted the closure of the 1st respondent's plant, and directed the National Environment Management Authority to conduct an audit and file a compliance report within 90 days. The closure order would remain lifted pending the filing...

Court Disposition

application for review allowed; closure order lifted pending audit; compliance report to be filed within 90 days; liberty to apply; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The National Environment Management Authority to audit the applicant and file a compliance report within 90 days.
  • The order of closure of the 1st respondent's plant is lifted pending the filing of the compliance report.