Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Petition 9 of 2014 |
---|---|
Parties: | Law & Social Deelopment Trust (LASODET) & 2 others v Attorney General & 10 others |
Date Delivered: | 23 Jun 2014 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | High Court at Meru |
Case Action: | Directions |
Judge(s): | Peter Muchoki Njoroge |
Citation: | Law & Social Deelopment Trust (LASODET) & 2 others v Attorney General & 10 others [2014] eKLR |
Court Division: | Judicial Review |
Case Outcome: | Allowed partly |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA T MERU
PETITION NO. 9 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22, 70 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 1020
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 19, 20, 27, 32, 35, 42, 44 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 2(5) & (6), 10, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73 AND 174 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
BETWEEN
LAW & SOCIAL DEELOPMENT TRUST (LASODET)...........................1ST PETITIONER
ATIRIRI BURURI MA CHUKA TRUST.........................................................2ND PETITIONER
WENDY W. MUTEGI AND OTHERS 3000 PETITIONERS
as named in the schedule attached in the schedule annexed...................3RD PETITIONER
AND
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRY FOR ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LANDS.........................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
THE KENYA FOREST..............................................................................................5TH RESPONDENT
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE.................................................................................6TH RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INFORMATIONAND COMMUNICATION..................................7TH RESPONDENT
THARAKA NITHI COUNTY GOVERNMENT......................................................8TH RESPONDENT
RHINO ARK.............................................................................................................9TH RESPONDENT
THE NYAYO TEA ZONES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.........................10TH RESPONDENT
NATIONAL ENVIORNMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY (“NEMA”).......................................................................................11TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
This is an environment case. What was slated for today was the hearing of 2 applications. The first one is by Wendy Mutegi on behalf of other petitioners dated 22.4.2014. The second one is by the 1st petitioner dated 13.6.2014.
Gleaning from the expressions of the parties in Court, the two applications spawn weighty and convoluted issues. There have even been allegations that the petitioners and even one of their advocates feel insecure. Some of the respondents do not oppose one of the applications. The issue of who represents who has also been raised. The rationale for bringing some of the respondents on board has been questioned.
The Constitution of Kenya requires that the principle of sound conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas be embraced when the Court deals with environmental matters. The Court should also consider the principle that resources should be managed in a sustainable and productive manner.
There have been claims that the saw millers have paid millions of shillings to be allowed to harvest trees in the disputed forest. It has also been claimed that the oversight agency , NEMA, and the lead agency, Kenya Forestry Service, have approved the harvest of the trees being challenged. There has even been a claim that the petitioners are not altruistic in their applications but are only piqued as they have not been allowed to partake in the financial benefits arising out of the millers harvesting of the trees.
To demystify these issues, I give the following directions/orders:
Dated and delivered at Meru this 23rd day of June, 2014.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE