George Makateto & another v Director of Public Prosecution; National Environment Management Authority (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
D. K. Kemei
Judgment Date
October 06, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 case summary of George Makateto & another v Director of Public Prosecution; National Environment Management Authority. Discover key legal insights and implications.

Case Brief: George Makateto & another v Director of Public Prosecution; National Environment Management Authority (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: George Makateto & Export Processing Zone Authority v. The Director of Public Prosecution & National Environment Management Authority
- Case Number: Petition No. 30 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Machakos
- Date Delivered: October 6, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): D. K. Kemei
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue revolves around whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition concerning environmental prosecution, or if such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as stipulated by Article 165(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, George Makateto and the Export Processing Zone Authority, filed a case against the Director of Public Prosecution. The case arose from allegations related to environmental violations under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). The National Environment Management Authority was named as an interested party, asserting that the matter should be addressed in the Environment and Land Court due to its nature as an environmental prosecution.

4. Procedural History:
The matter progressed through the High Court, where the interested party filed a preliminary objection on October 28, 2019, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The court directed that the objection be argued through written submissions. The interested party contended that the High Court could not hear the case and requested for the petition to be dismissed with costs. The court ultimately had to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the case.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Article 165(5) of the Constitution, which delineates the jurisdiction of the High Court, and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which defines the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in matters related to environmental issues.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v. Caltex Oil (K) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, which established that a court without jurisdiction cannot proceed with a case. The principles laid out in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturers Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 696 were also discussed, emphasizing that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law.
- Application: The court found that the subject matter of the petition involved environmental issues, which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The High Court determined that it lacked the authority to adjudicate the petition and thus could not proceed further. The court concluded that transferring the case to the appropriate court was more efficient and in the interest of justice.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition and allowed the preliminary objection. The petition was transferred to the Environment and Land Court for determination, with each party bearing its own costs. This decision underscores the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings and the need for cases to be heard in the appropriate court.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling; the decision was unanimous in recognizing the jurisdictional issue at hand.

8. Summary:
The case highlights the jurisdictional boundaries within the Kenyan legal system, particularly regarding environmental matters. The ruling emphasized the necessity for such cases to be heard by the Environment and Land Court, thus reinforcing the legal framework governing environmental protection in Kenya. The transfer of the case aims to facilitate a more appropriate and effective resolution in line with the relevant statutory provisions.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • George-Makateto--another-v-Director-of-Public-Prosecution-National-Environment-Management-Authority-Interested-Party-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1415_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries