[2019] KEELC 2703 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2703 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated lack of means to pay the required court fees and that the alleged violation concerned fundamental rights protected under Chapter Four of the Constitution. Given the constitutional guarantee of the right to a clean and healthy environment and the statutory mandate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2703 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Wanyonyi (C.E.O Western Kenya Legal Aid Organization); Applicant: John Wekesa Khaoya (C.E.O Centre for Human Rights Organization); Respondent: County Government of Bungoma; Respondent: C.E.C Member, Environment, Water & Natural Resources; Respondent: County Secretary, County Government of Bungoma
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Exemption From Court Fees
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Clean Environment, Court Fee Exemption, Public Interest Litigation
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Right to Clean Environment Court Fee Exemption Public Interest Litigation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Wanyonyi (C.E.O Western Kenya Legal Aid Organization)

Applicant

John Wekesa Khaoya (C.E.O Centre for Human Rights Organization)

Applicant

County Government of Bungoma

Respondent

C.E.C Member, Environment, Water & Natural Resources

Respondent

County Secretary, County Government of Bungoma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Exemption From Court Fees

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be exempted from paying court fees to file a petition alleging environmental rights violations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated lack of means to pay court fees.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged environmental violation falls under the Bill of Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated lack of means to pay the required court fees and that the alleged violation concerned fundamental rights protected under Chapter Four of the Constitution. Given the constitutional guarantee of the right to a clean and healthy environment and the statutory mandate of the Environment and Land Court to address such violations, the court held that it was just and proper to exempt the applicants from paying court fees to enable them to pursue their petition. The court emphasized access to justice for environmental rights claims, especially where public interest and the Bill of Rights are implicated.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicants are exempted from paying court fees for the intended petition against the respondents.