[2023] KEELC 21653 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 21653 (KLR)

The court found that the prayers sought in the interlocutory application were identical to those in the substantive appeal. Granting such relief at the interlocutory stage would preempt the outcome of the main appeal and undermine the merits-based determination of the substantive issues. The court emphasized that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 21653 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kopoa Developers Limited; Respondent: Edesk Properties Limited; Respondent: The Director General, National Environment Management Authority
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E043 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
EK Wabwoto
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Automatic Stay on Appeal, Tribunal Review Procedure, Exhaustion of Remedies
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Automatic Stay on Appeal Tribunal Review Procedure Exhaustion of Remedies

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kopoa Developers Limited

Appellant

Edesk Properties Limited

Respondent

The Director General, National Environment Management Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has established grounds for setting aside the National Environment Tribunal's orders of 5th April 2023 pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the prayers sought in the application duplicate those in the substantive appeal and should be granted at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prayers sought in the interlocutory application were identical to those in the substantive appeal. Granting such relief at the interlocutory stage would preempt the outcome of the main appeal and undermine the merits-based determination of the substantive issues. The court emphasized that interlocutory applications should not be used to obtain final orders before the main appeal is heard and determined. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as unmerited, with costs to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 3rd August 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main appeal.