[2024] KENET 361 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that it possesses the jurisdiction to review its own orders to prevent injustice, even in the absence of explicit procedural rules, as this is necessary to fulfill its mandate of accessible and effective environmental justice. The Applicants demonstrated, through an expert noise monitoring report,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KENET 361 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Wangeci Kimani; Applicant: Richard Kimani Kariuki; Respondent: National Environment Management Authority; Respondent: Bedarin Hotel Limited
- Court
- National Environment Tribunal - Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Appeal 29 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Orders
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- Emmanuel Mumia, Winnie Tsuma, Duncan Kuria, Ronald Allamano
- Legal Topics
- Noise Pollution, Right to Clean Environment, Environmental Nuisance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Esther Wangeci Kimani
Applicant
Richard Kimani Kariuki
Applicant
National Environment Management Authority
Respondent
Bedarin Hotel Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own orders in the absence of express statutory provision.
- 2 Whether the Applicants' right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the Constitution has been violated by the 2nd Respondent's conduct.
- 3 Whether the circumstances justify setting aside the order vacating injunctive relief and reinstating the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that it possesses the jurisdiction to review its own orders to prevent injustice, even in the absence of explicit procedural rules, as this is necessary to fulfill its mandate of accessible and effective environmental justice. The Applicants demonstrated, through an expert noise monitoring report, that the 2nd Respondent's conduct resulted in excessive noise, constituting a nuisance and violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42. The unopposed evidence established a sufficient basis for review. The Tribunal held that the violation of the Applicants' environmental rights warranted setting aside the previous order vacating...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The order issued on 4th April 2023 vacating the injunctive orders issued on 10th March 2023 is set aside.
- The injunctive orders issued on 10th March 2023 are reinstated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kimani & another v National Environment Management Authority & another (Tribunal Appeal 29 of 2021) [2024] KENET 361 (KLR) (29 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KENET 361 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the National Environment Tribunal - Nairobi
Tribunal Appeal 29 of 2021
Emmanuel Mumia, Chair, Winnie Tsuma, Vice Chair, Duncan Kuria & Ronald Allamano, Members
February 29, 2024
Between
Esther Wangeci Kimani
1st Applicant
Richard Kimani Kariuki
2nd Applicant
and
National Environment Management Authority
1st Respondent
Bedarin Hotel Limited
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. Before the Honorable Tribunal is the Applicants’ Application dated 11th December 2023 seeking inter alia that the Tribunal alters, varies, sets aside or reviews the orders issued on 4th April 2023. The Application is supported by the joint affidavit of the Applicants sworn on the same date.
2. Despite being served with the application, the Respondents did not file any response. We will, therefore, proceed on the premise that the Application is unopposed.
3. We note that the Applicants are seeking to review the Tribunal orders issued on 4th April 2023, through which the Tribunal vacated its injunctive orders issued 10th March 2023. Notwithstanding there are no express provisions conferring the Tribunal with the power to review its decisions, the Tribunal has on numeral occasions held that it has the jurisdiction to review its orders. One such decision is Wemali Benson & 3 others v National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) & another [2020] eKLR, where the Tribunal held as follows:‘The Tribunal, in its course of dispensing justice, makes numerous orders, some of which are reviewed in the course of the hearing of matters. Whereas the NET Rules do not have a Rule similar to Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 129 (3c) provides some leeway to make decisions that may guide the dispensation of justice. It would be a legal absurdity for the Tribunal to find that it cannot review its decisions, including errors that may be apparent on the face of the record or any other orders in the course of taking proceedings and instead ask the parties to proceed on appeal. The purpose of existence of the Tribunal is to save on time, resources, formalities and to make justice more accessible to all and sundry. A finding that the Tribunal cannot review its own decision would be an erosion of the purpose of existence of the Tribunal.’
4. We note that the Applicants contend that since the injunctive orders were discharged, the 2nd Respondent has been playing loud and unreasonable sounds, which is a nuisance to them. In support of this assertion, the Applicant has filed an Environmental Noise Monitoring Report prepared by Ecoserv Consultants Limited showing that high noise levels are being recorded, which can cause annoyance, disturbance, and sleep deprivation.
5. We find the above conduct by the 2nd Respondent to violate the Applicants’ right to a clean and healthy environment guaranteed under Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya. The right to a clean and healthy environment is bestowed on every person and has been considered by the courts and eminent authors to be essential for the existence of mankind. In Adrian Kamotho Njenga vs Council of Governors & 3 others [2020] eKLR, it was held that:‘Article 42 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through the measures prescribed by Article 69. The right extends to having the obligations relating to the environment under Article 70 fulfilled. Unlike the other rights in the bill of rights which are guaranteed for enjoyment by individuals during their lifetime, the right to a clean and healthy environment is an entitlement of present and future generations and is to be enjoyed by every person with the obligation to conserve and protect the environment. The right has three components: the right itself, the right to have unrestricted access to the courts to seek redress where a person alleges the right to a clean and healthy environment has been infringed or is threatened; and the right to have the court make any order or give any directions it considers appropriate to either prevent or discontinue the act harmful to the environment, or compel any public officer to take measures to prevent or discontinue the act that is harmful tothe environment or award compensation to any victim of a violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment.”
6. In view of the foregoing, it is our finding that the violation of the Applicant’s right to a clean and healthy environment is a sufficient reason to warrant the Tribunal to review its orders. Consequently, the Applicants’ Application dated 11th December 2023 is allowed in the following terms:a.The order issued on 4th April 2023 vacating the injunctive orders issued on 10th March 2023 is hereby set aside.b.The injunctive orders issued on 10th March 2023 are hereby reinstated.c.Each party to bear their own costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI, THIS 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024EMMANUEL MUMIA - CHAIRMANWINNIE TSUMA - VICE-CHAIRDUNCAN KURIA - MEMBERRONALD ALLAMANO - MEMBER