George Kimani Kariuki & 7 Others v Kenya Forest Service & 3 Others; Biashara Masters Sawmills Limited & 9 Others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a petition challenging a Kenya Forest Service timber tender, ruling procurement disputes belong in the High Court under procurement law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether what has been raised amounts to a Preliminary Objection
- 2.Whether the Preliminary Objections on jurisdiction, exhaustion and constitutional avoidance are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the objections amounted to preliminary objections on points of law
Yes - the jurisdictional ground raised falls within the definition of a preliminary point of law
Applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court found that the ground of jurisdiction raised by the 1st Respondent and the 6th and 8th Interested Parties is a pure point of law which may dispose of the suit without ascertaining facts, and therefore proceeded to determine it as a preliminary objection.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a petition whose substratum is the award of a public procurement tender
No - the predominant issue is the manner of award of Tender No. KFS/DISP/28/2025-2026, and the ELC lacks jurisdiction; the proper court is the High Court
Although the ELC has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act over environmental and land disputes, the petition's grievances and prayers centred on the legality and discrimination in the tender award, a procurement dispute outside its mandate. Section 175(1) of the PPAD Act channels review of Board decisions to the High Court.
Whether the Petitioners were required to exhaust remedies under the PPAD Act
Yes - the Petitioners had not exhausted the remedies provided by the PPAD Act, in particular Sections 170(d), 174 and 175, before coming to court
The court agreed with the 1st Respondent and interested parties that the statutory remedies under the PPAD Act had not been exhausted. The Petitioners' own assertion that they lacked locus before the Review Board did not excuse non-exhaustion of the statutory dispute-resolution mechanism.
Whether Law Society of Kenya v AG; Katiba Institute (Interested Parties) (2024) KEELC 6532 (KLR) applied
Distinguished - that case concerned logging activities, indigenous forest protection, logging moratorium and public participation, not a specific tender
The court found the authority relied on by the Petitioners distinguishable because its main issues were logging activities, indigenous forest protection, lifting of the logging moratorium and public participation, whereas the instant petition dealt with a specific tender for sale of forest plantation materials.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct
- Jurisdiction is foundational; a court must down its tools the moment it finds it lacks jurisdiction
- Where the predominant issue in a petition is the award of a public procurement tender, the ELC lacks jurisdiction and the proper forum is the High Court under the PPAD Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections dated 22nd May 2026 and 16th June 2026 are upheld
- 2.The Notice of motion and the petition are struck out
- 3.The orders issued on 30th April 2026 are vacated
- 4.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Petition and notice of motion seeking, inter alia, quashing of Tender No. KFS/DISP/28/2025-26 and stay of its implementation
Court lacks jurisdiction; predominant issue is the award of a procurement tender, for which the proper forum is the High Court under the PPAD Act
Costs
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In conclusion, I find that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised in the petition herein. The Preliminary Objections dated 22 nd May 2026 and 16th June 2026 are upheld. The Notice of motion and the petition are hereby struck out. The orders issued on the 30 th April 2026 are hereby vacated.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step.
In my view, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant the said orders. The proper court would be the High Court.
the Petitioners have not exhausted the remedies provided by the PPAD and in particular Section 170 (d) 174 and 175 of the said Act, which they must before coming to court.
Issues in the judgment
#Third interested party named 'Rosonga Investments' in title but 'LOSOGWA SAWMILL ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED' appears separately; possible duplication/misnomer
6th interested party styled 'BUFFLOC INVESTMENT' in body, possibly a misspelling of 'Losogwa'
1st Respondent's PO cites the PPAD Act as 'Cap 412C' though elsewhere it is the 2015 Act
Tender number inconsistently rendered as KFS/DISP/28/2025-26 and KFS/.DIPS/28/2025-2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Kimani Kariuki & 7 Others v Kenya Forest Service & 3 Others; Biashara Masters Sawmills Limited & 9 Others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Petition No. E004 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6163/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.