[2014] KEHC 2511 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised in the applications are weighty and complex, involving allegations of environmental harm, questions of representation, and claims of insecurity. Applying the precautionary principle, the court granted interim orders to halt certain activities pending inter partes hearing,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2511 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Law & Social Development Trust (LASODET); Applicant: Atiriri Bururi Ma Chuka Trust; Applicant: Wendy W. Mutegi and others (as named in the schedule annexed); Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry for Energy and Natural Resources; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands; Respondent: The National Land Commission; Respondent: The Kenya Forest; Respondent: Kenya Wildlife Service; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication; Respondent: Tharaka Nithi County Government; Respondent: Rhino Ark; Respondent: The Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation; Respondent: National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 9 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Directions on Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Interim orders granted; directions issued for urgent hearing and submissions.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Precautionary Principle, Forest Conservation, Public Participation, Sustainable Resource Management
- 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
Law & Social Development Trust (LASODET)
Applicant
Atiriri Bururi Ma Chuka Trust
Applicant
Wendy W. Mutegi and others (as named in the schedule annexed)
Applicant
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry for Energy and Natural Resources
Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands
Respondent
The National Land Commission
Respondent
The Kenya Forest
Respondent
Kenya Wildlife Service
Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication
Respondent
Tharaka Nithi County Government
Respondent
Rhino Ark
Respondent
The Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation
Respondent
National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions on Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the harvesting of trees in the disputed forest violates constitutional and environmental rights.
- 2 Whether the precautionary principle should be applied to halt activities pending determination of the petition.
- 3 Whether the petitioners have locus standi and proper representation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised in the applications are weighty and complex, involving allegations of environmental harm, questions of representation, and claims of insecurity. Applying the precautionary principle, the court granted interim orders to halt certain activities pending inter partes hearing, emphasizing the need for urgent and comprehensive submissions from all parties. The court directed that all parties file written submissions within specified timelines and that any security concerns be addressed by the relevant police authorities. The orders were made to preserve the status quo and ensure that environmental and constitutional rights are not prejudiced before the...
Court Disposition
Interim orders granted; directions issued for urgent hearing and submissions.
Orders
- Application to be heard urgently by way of written submissions.
- Petitioners to file and exchange submissions within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA T MERU
PETITION NO. 9 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22, 70 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 1020
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 19, 20, 27, 32, 35, 42, 44 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 2(5) & (6), 10, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73 AND 174 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
BETWEEN
LAW & SOCIAL DEELOPMENT TRUST (LASODET)...........................1ST PETITIONER
ATIRIRI BURURI MA CHUKA TRUST.........................................................2ND PETITIONER
WENDY W. MUTEGI AND OTHERS 3000 PETITIONERS
as named in the schedule attached in the schedule annexed...................3RD PETITIONER
AND
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRY FOR ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LANDS.........................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
THE KENYA FOREST..............................................................................................5TH RESPONDENT
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE.................................................................................6TH RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INFORMATIONAND COMMUNICATION..................................7TH RESPONDENT
THARAKA NITHI COUNTY GOVERNMENT......................................................8TH RESPONDENT
RHINO ARK.............................................................................................................9TH RESPONDENT
THE NYAYO TEA ZONES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.........................10TH RESPONDENT
NATIONAL ENVIORNMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY (“NEMA”).......................................................................................11TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
This is an environment case. What was slated for today was the hearing of 2 applications. The first one is by Wendy Mutegi on behalf of other petitioners dated 22. 4.2014. The second one is by the 1st petitioner dated 13. 6.2014.
Gleaning from the expressions of the parties in Court, the two applications spawn weighty and convoluted issues. There have even been allegations that the petitioners and even one of their advocates feel insecure. Some of the respondents do not oppose one of the applications. The issue of who represents who has also been raised. The rationale for bringing some of the respondents on board has been questioned.
The Constitution of Kenya requires that the principle of sound conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas be embraced when the Court deals with environmental matters. The Court should also consider the principle that resources should be managed in a sustainable and productive manner.
There have been claims that the saw millers have paid millions of shillings to be allowed to harvest trees in the disputed forest. It has also been claimed that the oversight agency , NEMA, and the lead agency, Kenya Forestry Service, have approved the harvest of the trees being challenged. There has even been a claim that the petitioners are not altruistic in their applications but are only piqued as they have not been allowed to partake in the financial benefits arising out of the millers harvesting of the trees.
To demystify these issues, I give the following directions/orders:
This application be heard very urgently.
The application should be heard by way of written submissions with all petitioners filing and exchanging their submissions within 14 days.
Respondents to file their submissions within 14 days after service by the petitioners.
All respondents allowed to file their responses within 10 days and all parties are allowed liberal leave to respond,if and as necessary.
In their submissions, parties should raise all pertinent issues including representation and clear any grey areas.
In accordance with the precautionary principle, I grant prayer c of the application dated 22. 4.2014. Prayer e of the application is granted STRICTLY pending interpartes hearing of this application.
Regarding the application dated 13th June, 2014, prayer e is granted STRICTLY pending interpartes hearing of this application. Prayer c is granted.
Regarding apprehension by the Petitioners and one of the advocates regarding threats to their security, I direct that they present themselves before the County Commander of Police, Tharaka, Nithi so that concerned OCPD'(s) and OCS'(s) can investigate this matter
All parties to properly serve all parties they have not served.
Directions on 30. 7.2014 regarding a date for ruling.
The directions herein be typed immediately and be availed to parties at their own costs.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 23rd day of June, 2014.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE