Felix Muchina t/a Festig Cool Sip Limited v National Environmental Management Agency,Director of Criminal Investigations & Attorney General [2017] KEHC 927 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  660 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 129(1) (2) AND 153 (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF GAZZETTE NOTICE NO.  2334 OF 2017

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

INSTITUTEOF JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.

BETWEEN

FELIX MUCHIN

T/A FESTIG COOL SIP LIMITED...............................APPLICANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT AGENCY...............................1ST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIONS.........................................2ND RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................3RD RESPONDENT

RULING

1. By a chamber summons dated 11th November  2017  the  exparte  applicant Felix  Muchina  T/A Festig  Cool Sip Ltd  seeks from this court  leave to apply for:

i. Judicial Review  order of certiorari to bring into this court and  quash  the  1st respondent’s  decision made on 10th October  2017  in Nairobi  Application No.  NEMA (PBC539/1095, “Application for Primary Industrial Plastic Packaging” purporting to  reject  the  applicant’s  application  to package  his product in plastic  packaging.

ii. The applicant also seeks leave to apply for prohibition  prohibiting the 1st respondent from interfering with and or halting operations and  or services  provided by the applicant  and  or his business pending  hearing  and  determination  of this application;

iii. that leave so granted to operate as stay of implementation  of the ruling  letter date 10th October  2017  and  decree  from the  said decision;

iv. costs; and

v.  any  other relief that the court  deems fit  and just  to grant  in the circumstances.

2. The application is predicated on the grounds set out on the face of the chamber summons and in the statutory statement and verifying affidavit sworn by Felix Muchina.

3. Basically, the applicant  laments  that he operates  a business  of  packaging and distributing drinking water using plastic packaging, similar to the packaging  used for milk, which is  cost effective, affordable and accessible to the common  mwananchi  as opposed to  the  costly  plastic  bottles  which  cost  more.

4. That when he filed an application with NEMA seeking for exemption  from using  plastic  packaging following  the  27the August  2017 ban, his application  was rejected  vide a letter  of  10th October  2017.  He is afraid that any appeal will be  rejected because the  same persons  who rejected  his application will deliberate on  his appeal which will render his business to collapse and  so he sought  this court’s intervention to exempt him from the ban and if the court orders that he exhausts the  appeal, a  conservatory order should issue.

5. The application  is opposed  by  the 1st  respondent who filed  a  preliminary  objection dated  30th November  2017 contending  that  this court has  no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters of Environment as stipulated  in Articles 162(2)(b),165(5) of the Constitution and Sections 13 of Environment and  Land Court Act, Section 130 of EMCA Cap 386 and Section 129 of the EMCA Cap 386.

6. Further, that the applicant has sued a wrong party which is nonexistent, urging the court to dismiss the application.

7. The application was argued this morning orally with Mr Mogaka submitting on behalf of the applicant and Miss Githaiga representing the 1st respondent.

8. Mr Mogaka reiterated the contents  of the chamber  summons, grounds  and  as supported  by the statutory  statement  and  the  verifying  affidavit, urging  the court to allow  his client  to continue  packaging  drinking  water in  plastic packaging.

9. In response, Miss Githaiga opposed the chamber summons relying on her client’s preliminary objection as reproduced above and urging the court to dismiss the application.

DETERMINATION

10. I have  considered  all the foregoing  and  in my humble  view, the  issue for determination is whether this court  has jurisdiction to hear and  determine  this matter.

11. Article 165(3) (a) of the Constitution confers on the High Court unlimited original and appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters.

12. However, Article  165(5) (b) of the Constitution  expressly bars  the High Court  from hearing  and  determining  disputes falling  within the jurisdiction  of  the courts  contemplated in Article  162(2) of the Constitution.

13. Article162(2)(b) of the Constitution establishes the Environment  and  Land  Court  to hear and  determine disputes  relating  to environment  and  the use  and  occupation of, and  title  to, land.  Parliament did, pursuant to Article 162(3) of the Constitution, enact the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 and conferred on it jurisdiction and functions.

14. Section 13(1) of the Environment  and  Land Court  Act is  on jurisdiction  of the court and  under Section  13(7) thereof, the  court  has power to grant orders including prerogative or Judicial Review  orders.

15. The dispute  before me  relates  to plastic packaging  of drinking  water by the applicant  which is subject to approval  by the National Environmental Management  Authority and  the  applicant  claims that he  applied for  exemption from the Authority  but he  was declined on  10th October  2017  on the grounds that there exists   other feasible and  eco-friendly  alternative packaging  materials.  He was asked to seek alternative packaging which does not contravene gazette Notice No. 2334.

16. The applicant is aggrieved by that rejection which he is challenging by way of certiorari and prohibition.

17. Plastic packaging is a matter that lies  entirely  in the jurisdiction  of National Environmental Management Authority and any person  aggrieved by the decision of  the Authority can  appeal to the NEMA Tribunal(NET) as stipulated  in Sections  129 and  130  of the EMCA.

18. The applicant  by implication in his affidavit, has filed  an appeal before  the tribunal but he is  not confident  that he will get justice there and  that it  might take long  for the appeal to be decided by  which time  he will have been out  of business.

19. An appeal or a challenge of the decision of the NEMA Tribunal lies to the Environment and Land Court not to this court.

20. With all the  above in mind, I have  no doubt in mind that this court  is divested of any jurisdiction to hear and  determine   the  matter  before it  whether  as an appeal  or by way  of Judicial Review.

21. The court that has jurisdiction assuming the matter is  properly  placed before  it,  and  subject to Sections  9(2),(3) and  (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 on exhaustion of  alternative  remedies  is the Environment  and  Land Court  and not the  High Court.

22. And as jurisdiction is everything  without  which this court acts  in vain, I must accordingly down my tools, uphold the  preliminary objection  filed herein  dated 30th November  2017  and  strike out the exparte  applicant’s chamber summons  dated 11th November  2018 with no orders  as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open  court at Nairobi this 11th day of December, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Mogaka for the applicant

Miss Githaiga for the Respondents

Court Assistant: George