The agricultural project had an environmental impact assessment licence. Subsequent notices raised concerns about a wildlife corridor, an ecosystem plan and consultation. The litigation that followed did not produce the merits determination that a simple “appeal dismissed” headline might suggest.
Kiliavo Fresh Limited v National Environment Tribunal & 4 others [2025] KECA 623 (KLR), consolidated Civil Appeals E446 and E447 of 2024, was decided by the Court of Appeal on 4 April 2025.
The decision concerned the route used to challenge the Tribunal's dismissal, rather than a fresh ruling approving or prohibiting the agricultural project.
The licence did not end the land-use dispute
The Supreme Court's later account locates the project in Amboseli, Kajiado County (paragraph 2). The Court of Appeal describes notices threatening licence cancellation and directing that further development stop (paragraph 4).
Those concerns were the subject of dispute. They should not be reported here as fresh appellate findings that the project had conclusively violated every rule alleged.
Equally, possession of the licence did not make later enforcement questions disappear. The company still needed to address the notices and pursue the appropriate legal remedy.
The existence of an approval and the outcome of a challenge to later action are different parts of a land-use history.
The Tribunal appeal was dismissed after non-attendance
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal following non-attendance. The company then pursued judicial review (paragraphs 5–6). The later Supreme Court account records earlier interim protection and licence extension pending the Tribunal appeal; it does not establish a continuing permission after dismissal (paragraphs 5–6).
The Court of Appeal considered whether the dismissal of that judicial-review proceeding for want of jurisdiction was correct.
That procedural history is important. The appellate court was not simply choosing between competing ecological evidence or deciding whether farming should permanently continue on the land.
The question was whether the company had used the appropriate route to challenge the Tribunal's decision.
A statutory appeal was available
The Court of Appeal held that the company should have used the statutory appeal provided under section 130 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (paragraphs 25–28).
It found no demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying the alternative judicial-review route in this case.
The result does not mean judicial review can never be relevant to environmental disputes. It concerns the available remedy and circumstances actually before the court.
An exception accepted on different facts does not automatically carry across to every dispute involving an environmental regulator.
The Court of Appeal did not decide the project merits anew
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents (paragraph 30).
The court did not thereby make a new finding that agriculture was lawful or unlawful throughout the corridor, validate every aspect of licence revocation or impose a permanent farming ban through this judgment.
Those would be broader conclusions than the procedural holding supports.
The judgment also does not establish the project's current licence status, physical operations or later regulatory dealings.
The Supreme Court stopped at jurisdiction too
The related judgment, [2026] KESC 18 (KLR), is signed and dated 30 January 2026.
The Supreme Court held that the constitutional appellate threshold under Article 163(4)(a) had not been met. It upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the petition. Each party was to bear its own costs, and the KSh 6,000 security deposit was to be refunded (paragraphs 43–48).
That outcome was not a new substantive environmental determination. It should not be described as a Supreme Court endorsement of every underlying enforcement allegation.
The company had sought reinstatement and remittal of its judicial-review motion, but the Supreme Court did not grant that relief (paragraphs 14 and 48). These were not identical merits verdicts.
Questions when an environmental approval is challenged
- What approval exists, and what later action is being disputed?
- Was the Tribunal decision made on evidence or on a procedural basis?
- Which statutory remedy is available against that decision?
- Did the later court reach the project's merits or decide jurisdiction and procedure?
A Kenyan advocate and relevant environmental professionals should assess those matters using the actual licence, notices and court record.
A substantial investment or existing licence does not itself determine the correct challenge route. Nor does a procedural loss prove that every substantive issue has been finally adjudicated.
Keep screening separate from licence confirmation
Review ArdhiScore's stated screening scope and limitations before deciding whether it is relevant. Screening cannot validate a licence, guarantee protection from enforcement or missed deadlines, certify environmental suitability or title, or replace official records and qualified Kenyan advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
This historical draft remains held after local review on 11 September 2026. The complete Supreme Court text was read, but the retained Court of Appeal text lacks its judicial header and signed closing date. Procedural-date inconsistencies remain recorded; no fresh later-history search or current regulatory certification is claimed.
Primary decisions
Read the 2025 judgment: paragraphs 1–6 and 21–30. Read the 2026 Supreme Court judgment: paragraphs 2, 5–14 and 33–48.