The National Environment Tribunal has dismissed an attempt by Likoni residents to join and challenge a concluded environmental case involving Taifa Gas Investments SEZ Ltd, reaffirming the finality of its January 2024 judgment that cleared the project to proceed.
The project situated in Likoni's Dongo Kundu Special Economic Zone involves a Sh16 billion Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) facility initiated by Tanzanian investor Rostam Azizi.
It aims to boost Kenya's cooking energy security, make gas cheaper, and serve as an East African hub with a 30,000-tonne capacity.
In its ruling, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen or extend time for the three petitions, which were consolidated and decided nearly two years ago.
The bench said it became functus officio (no longer having official authority) once judgment was delivered, meaning its mandate over the dispute was exhausted.
The applicants, Mohamed Said Ali Karungu and Raphael Nyiro, had sought to be allowed to join the case as interested parties and to lodge an appeal out of time, arguing they were unaware of the original proceedings.
“The applicants represent the coastal fishing community of Likoni, Dongo Kundu, whose lives and livelihoods stand imperiled by the project in question; to deny them audience would not merely be procedural injustice—it would be a moral wrong and a betrayal of the very purpose for which this tribunal exists,” said Mr Karungu in an affidavit.
He stated that the local residents only learned of the decision clearing the project in August 2025, “when heavy machinery descended upon their community and construction works began.”
“What the applicants seek is simply leave to exercise a right already guaranteed by statute,” Mr Karungu said.
They accused Taifa Gas of hiding behind technicalities such as res judicata (a matter already judged) and timelines to avoid scrutiny, arguing that their delay was reasonable under constitutional principles favoring substantive justice over procedure.
However, Taifa Gas opposed the application, terming it an abuse of process and warning that allowing it would undermine certainty in environmental governance.
In submissions filed through LOK Law Advocates LLP, the company argued that a miscellaneous application could not revive concluded proceedings or extend the strict 30-day appeal window under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act.
“This tribunal is functus officio; its jurisdiction is spent and cannot be rekindled through procedural creativity,” Taifa Gas submitted, describing the application as “forum-shopping acrobatics.”
The tribunal agreed, finding that joinder after judgment was legally untenable. It held that joinder is meant to aid the determination of live disputes and cannot be used to reopen matters already decided.
“There is no pending or subsisting proceeding capable of being supported by joinder,” the tribunal said.
It also struck out a further affidavit filed by the applicants for being lodged out of time and without leave, noting that while Article 159 of the Constitution encourages substantive justice, it does not excuse unexplained non-compliance with procedural directions.
On the request for an extension of time, the tribunal emphasized that statutory timelines are jurisdictional. Section 130 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act requires appeals to be filed within 30 days—a period the tribunal said it had no power to extend.
The applicants’ bid came about 22 months after judgment, long after the appeal window had closed.
Taifa Gas argued that reopening the dispute would cause prejudice to a capital-intensive national energy project already licensed by NEMA, disrupting planning and investment certainty.
The tribunal did not expressly weigh prejudice but said finality in litigation was a matter of law, not discretion.
“The finality of its judgment is not a matter of sympathy or convenience,” the tribunal said, warning that entertaining the motion would amount to assuming powers it does not possess.
In the end, the tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered each party to bear its own costs, leaving Taifa Gas’ environmental approvals intact.
