Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Muranga South Water and Sanitation Company, challenged the decision of the Respondents (Muranga Municipality, Muranga County Government, Muranga Water and Sanitation, and the Water Services Regulatory Board) to review the Muranga Municipal Water Boundaries. The Applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash this decision and a writ of mandamus to reinstate its status as the water service provider in the Maragua area. The 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Water Tribunal established by the Water Act 2016. The court ruled that the Applicant should have first approached the Water Tribunal and that the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction for such disputes. Proceedings were stayed pending the Applicant's filing with the Water Tribunal.
Issues
The main issue is whether the dispute falls under the provisions of the Water Act 2016 and, if so, whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Holdings
- The court determined that the dispute falls under the Water Act 2016, requiring the Applicant to first approach the Water Tribunal before seeking judicial review. The court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction as the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative remedy provided under the Act.
- The court clarified that even if the Applicant had properly initiated the process, the Environment and Land Court is the appropriate venue for such disputes, not the High Court at Muranga. This is based on the Act's provision designating that court as the jurisdiction for appeals from the Water Tribunal.
Remedies
- Preliminary objection allowed by the court.
- Proceedings stayed pending the filing of the complaint with the water tribunal.
- No orders as to cost were made in this ruling.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, requiring the applicant to first approach the Water Tribunal established under the Water Act 2016 before seeking judicial review. It emphasized that where a clear statutory procedure exists for redress, it must be strictly followed as per the Act.
- The court held that the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over disputes related to the Water Act 2016, including appeals from the Water Tribunal. This was based on Section 13(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which establishes its authority over such matters.
Precedent Name
- Augustin Michael Murandi & 2 others v Nolturesh Loitoktok Water and Sanitation Co Ltd
- Speaker of the National Assembly v Njenga Karume
- Fredrick Mworia v District Land Adjudication officer Tigania West /East & 3 others
Cited Statute
- Water Act 2016
- Constitution
- Environment and Land Court Act
Judge Name
J. Wakiaiga
Passage Text
- I therefore allow the Preliminary objection herein and being alive to the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution and stay the proceedings herein pending the filing of the complaint with the water tribunal with no orders as to cost.
- It therefore follows that this Court is not clothed with the subject matter jurisdiction as was stated in the case of Augustin Michael Murandi (supra) where the Court correctly held that the dispute falls within the Jurisdiction of the Water Tribunal and should not be elevated to a judicial Review matter in the first instance and even if it was then the relevant Court is not this Court.
- I am therefore in agreement that whereas the Court has unlimited jurisdiction, the Applicant should have exhausted the procedures provided for under the said Act and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter in the first instance.