SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Cortec Mining Kenya Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry Of Mining & another [2013] KEHC 6504 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6504 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6504
Citation
[2013] KEHC 6504 (KLR)
Decided
21 August 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx-parte application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings and stay of implementation of decisionCoramD.S. MAJAN, Korir, Maraga
Holding

Justice declined to strike out the depositions of the National Environment Management Authority, Basu Mining Limited, and Kenya Forestry Service as interested parties.

Facts

Cortec Mining Kenya Limited applied for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to quash and prohibit the revocation of its Special (Mining) Licence No. 351 and the appointment of a task force to review the licence. The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Mining and the Attorney General were the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the revocation of the mining licence and the appointment of a task force to review the licence are valid.
  2. Whether the National Environment Management Authority, Basu Mining Limited, and Kenya Forestry Service are necessary parties to the proceedings.

Reasoning

The court considered the necessity of the National Environment Management Authority, Basu Mining Limited, and Kenya Forestry Service as parties to the proceedings due to their roles in the environment and the mining process.

Outcome

The application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings and stay of implementation of the decision was granted.

Orders

  • National Environment Management Authority, Basu Mining Limited, and Kenya Forestry Service were admitted as interested parties to the proceedings.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Environmental Management and Coordination Act, Act 8 of 1991
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case