1.By a notice of appeal dated 15 February the Appellant filed the present Appeal against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents respectively on his behalf and on behalf of the Faddville Residence Association. The appellant in his Notice of Notice of Appeal sought the following sole relief.
2.In his Grounds of Appeal, the appellant alleged that the development being undertaken was being done without Environmental Impact Assessment License from the 4th Respondent contrary to EMCA.
3.Other allegations were made in the Grounds of Appeal, including in paragraph 7 that the project was on 17th December 20221 suspended by the National Construction Authority but despite the suspension the construction was still going on.
4.Having filed the appeal the Appellant also proceeded to file a Notice of Motion dated 15th February 2022 seeking interlocutory order of injunction against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from undertaking construction of the building. When the matter came up for hearing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a Notice of preliminary objection dated 22nd March 2022 on the grounds that the honorable tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine both the appeal and the application in this matter. On its part the 4th respondent who are National Environment Management Authority also filed their Notice of Preliminary objection dated 2nd March 2022. In their Preliminary objection National Environment Management Authority stated that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction in that there was no decision identified to warrant any action under section 129 (1) of EMCA. The parties were invited to make submissions on the Notice of preliminary objection dated 2nd March 2022, which they did, with the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents filing their joint submissions on 11th April 2022 while the 4th respondents filed its submissions dated 11th April 2022. On their part, the appellants tendered their written submissions dated 26th April 2022 (parties order of description had been changed in the documents filed)
5.Having considered the various submissions of the parties and the Notice of Preliminary objection, the tribunal on perusal of the Notice of Appeal and the grounds attached to the Notice of Appeal finds that there is no decision identified to warrant an appeal against the 4th respondent that is the National Environment Management Authority. No complaint has been made against National Environment Management Authority, nor has any license issued, or decision to deny issuance, by them been questioned. There has been no decision of the National Environment Management Authority or its directors or officers called into question within the appeal.
6.The appeal merely seeks to stop “the construction” without any allegation made or evidence tendered to show that the National Environment Management Authority had made a decision on the matter or refused to act on the matter, after complaint, so warrant this appeal. As a result of this omission on the appellants part, it is clear that this tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the present appeal.
7.This tribunal draws its jurisdiction to entertain any appeal filed either from a decision of the National Environment Management Authority in respect of licensing ie as to whether to grant or to refuse a license under section 129(1) or from any decision of the Director General of the National Environment Management Authority or its committee’s or its officers as provided under section 129(2)
8.In the present appeal, no such decision either under section 129(1) or 129 (2) have been shown to exist so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. For this reason, the tribunal is left with no alternative but to strike out the appeal in its entirety. We will also not order any costs in the matter and instead direct that each party to bear their own costs.
9.Accordingly the orders we make are that the appeal be struck out with no orders as to costs.