[2008] KEHC 837 (KLR)
The court held that, under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, any person alleging contravention of environmental rights has standing to approach the court, and locus standi is not an impediment. The court further found that procedural objections regarding service and format, while important, should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 837 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Minister for Environment and Natural Resources; Respondent: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1643 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Locus Standi, Service of Process, Environmental Rights
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Minister for Environment and Natural Resources
Respondent
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judicial review application was fatally defective due to alleged procedural irregularities.
- 2 Whether lack of service on certain parties and the format of the application warranted striking out the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the matter before the court under environmental law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, any person alleging contravention of environmental rights has standing to approach the court, and locus standi is not an impediment. The court further found that procedural objections regarding service and format, while important, should not override the fundamental right of access to justice in environmental matters. The government may be represented by the Attorney General at any stage, and parties who believe they ought to be heard can be served with proceedings as provided under the Civil Procedure Rules. The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed, affirming the applicant's right to be heard on the...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the applicant/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Appli. 1643 of 2004
REPUBLIC ……….…………………....................................................………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENTALAND NATURAL RESOURCES … 1ST RESPONDENT
NATIONAL ENVIRONEMNTMANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) …… 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Background
1. In this Environmental Law Matter, the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources (as he was known then) intended to implement a decision of implementing the Lake Naivasha Managerial plan. A legal notice No. 108 issued by the Minister in Kenya Gazette notice No. 7704 on 3rd September, 2004 was to drastically effect the ex pate applicant.
2. The applicants applied for Judicial Review praying there to be leave to be given to them to stop any management plan by the Minister. The effect if not stopped, would effect their rights to the lake.
3. Leave was granted to the applicant by Nyamu J, of which leave, acted as a stay.
4. The Management Committee of Lake Naivasha appear to have disobeyed court orders. The application for contempt, heard by Nyamu J, was then not granted due to technicalities.
5. On the day this matter was called out for hearing the respondent namely advocate for NEMA and the state, raised a Preliminary Objection which is subject of this ruling.
II: Preliminary Objection
6. The objection raised is that the Judicial Review format was defective. There was no relief sought for NEMA.;
7. There was no proof of service on the Director General nor service on the Lake Naivasha Management Committee.
8. There are stay orders on record and as such the whole application should be struck out
9. Further, one Serah Nyambura has no locus to be before this court.
10. There was no reply by the respondents as they failed to file and service their reply.
II: Opinion
11. There are case law referred herein supporting the fact that if service and or the format of the Judicial Review is not in order the application may be struck out.
12. I would wish to bring the parties attention to the Environmental Management and Coordination Act which provides that any person aggrieved by any acts of or possible act of environmental degradation are permitted to come to court and the issue of Locus Standi will not be an impediment to appearing to court.
13. The person refers only to show that their rights have been contravened under section 3 and the High Court may hear them.
14. As the said parties wish to touch on the Minister and Government body then the parties must come to court by way of Judicial Review.
15. Access to justice and to be heard is of utmost importance in Environmental Law. The issue should have bneen taken up earlier and not at the stage of hearing.
16. As to the service upon other parties it is important to note the Government can come into a matter through the Attorney General at any stage and without filing papers.
17. The persons who believe they ought to be here, orders to have them served with the proceedings are available under Order LIII Civil Procedure Rules. And to give them evidence in court.
18. It is the fundamental right for the applicant to be heard on an Environmental Law matter. As such I dismiss this Preliminary Objection with costs to the respondent/applicant
DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 AT NAIROBI.
M.A. ANGA’WA
JUDGE
P.M. Muteithia instructed by P. Mureithi & Co. Advocates for the 1st respondent.
J. Olum holding brief for J. K. Kemboy instructed by Kemboy & Co. Advocates for the applicant – present
N. Thuku instructed by Mwenesi & Co. Advocates for the 2nd Respondent - present