RULING
1. This is a ruling on whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application as per the leave of the Court granted on 10th May, 2024 and if the said leave should operate as a stay.
2. The 1st Interested Party raises objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review Application as the matter falls squarely before the Environment and land court. That the Substratum of the matter is the established by Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya.
3. That the Environment and Land Court Act no.19 of 2011 (ELCA) gives effect to Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the court was established to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to land.
4. The court exercises jurisdiction throughout Kenya. It has original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of the Act or any other written law relating to environment and land.
5. The court has powers to deal with disputes relating to land administration and management. It is also empowered to hear cases relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land.
6. This Court has upon considering the extensive submissions for and against, in support of the preliminary objection by Mr. Arusei Advocate for the 1st Interested Party and submissions in opposition I am persuaded that:
7. The High Court is clothed with a special jurisdiction under Article 22 as read with Article 23 (3) of the Constitution to supervise all subordinate court and tribunal.
8. The Special Jurisdiction of the High Court to supervise subordinate courts and tribunals Is not located in the Environment and Land Court as argued by the 1st interested party. That court has concurrent jurisdiction and in this instance the impugned decision subject to the judicial review was a decision of a cooperative tribunal that touch on title to land, this court is only invited to examine the decision and its legality
9. The preliminary objection on want of jurisdiction by the 1st Interested Party is found to be without merit and is dismissed.
10. The question as to whether the leave granted herein should operate as a stay, is informed by Order 53 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules in that:
“The grant of leave under this rule to apply of prohibition or an order for certiorari shall if the judge so directs, operate as stay of the proceedings in question until determination of the application or until the judge orders otherwise.”
11. While no parties made submissions as to whether the Leave so granted should operate as a stay, the impugned decision is yet to be implemented and a cursory look of the framing of the same is indicative of probable challenges in implementation. I am however for good order that, the leave so granted should act as stay of implementation for the period of hearing and determination of the ex-parte Applicant’s application.
12. The 1st interested party are at liberty to support the impugned decision by the Cooperative Tribunal in submission including urge this Court to make an appropriate order invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
13. Parties are urged to comply with the Court’s directions dated 10th May, 2024 to expedite hearing and determination of the motion.
14. Costs shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.