[2023] KENET 226 (KLR)

[2023] KENET 226 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it was not possible, at the preliminary stage, to determine whether the appeal fell outside the scope of Section 129 of EMCA because the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to clarify whether the challenge was against the issuance of an EIA licence or another decision contemplated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KENET 226 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Soba (Shimo La Tewa Old Boys Alumni); Respondent: Bahari Desalination Company Limited; Respondent: Mombasa County Government; Respondent: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
Court
National Environment Tribunal - Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal 28 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary_objection_dismissed
Judges
Mohamed S Balala, Bahati Mwamuye, Waithaka Ngaruiya, Kariuki Muigua
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Preliminary Objection, Locus Standi, Scope of Section 129 Emca
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Jurisdiction of Tribunal Preliminary Objection Locus Standi Scope of Section 129 Emca

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soba (Shimo La Tewa Old Boys Alumni)

Appellant

Bahari Desalination Company Limited

Respondent

Mombasa County Government

Respondent

National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appeal falls outside the ambit of the causes of action contemplated under Section 129 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA) 1999.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
  3. 3 What orders should the Tribunal make regarding the preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it was not possible, at the preliminary stage, to determine whether the appeal fell outside the scope of Section 129 of EMCA because the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to clarify whether the challenge was against the issuance of an EIA licence or another decision contemplated by the Act. Since a preliminary objection must be based solely on points of law and not require the Tribunal to consider evidence, the objection could not be sustained. The Tribunal further held that, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, it retained jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. Accordingly, the preliminary objection was dismissed and the appeal...

Court Disposition

preliminary_objection_dismissed

Orders

  • The 3rd Respondent’s Preliminary Objection is hereby dismissed.
  • The Appeal shall proceed to be heard on merit.