Republic v Peterson Ouma Olum & 2 others exparte Mary Wambua [2017] KEELC 1168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court confirmed the Rent Restriction Tribunal has no power over rented premises charging more than KES 2,500 monthly rent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal over premises whose monthly rent exceeds Kshs. 2,500/-
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to premises with a standard rent not exceeding Kshs. 2,500/- per month under section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act; since the suit premises attract rent of Kshs. 30,000/- per month, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and its order of 4th June, 2015 was a nullity.
Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act, Chapter 293 excludes dwelling houses with a standard rent exceeding Kshs. 2,500/- per month from the Act. The monthly rent agreed between the applicant and the 1st respondent was Kshs. 30,000/- and was not disputed. Applying the Lilian 'S' principle that jurisdiction flows from the law, the Tribunal could not entertain the dispute. Proceedings and orders made without jurisdiction are nullities, warranting both certiorari to quash the existing order and prohibition to stop the continuing proceedings.
Entitlement to the prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition
Certiorari and prohibition were both warranted: certiorari to quash the null order and prohibition to terminate the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Relying on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge, the court explained that prohibition forbids an inferior tribunal from continuing proceedings in excess of jurisdiction, while certiorari quashes a decision already made where it is without jurisdiction. Since the Tribunal's proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, the court found the applicant had made out a case for both orders.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction flows from the law and a court or tribunal may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through the craft of interpretation where the wording of legislation is clear.
- Where a tribunal proceeds to hear and determine a matter not within its jurisdiction, the proceedings and determination are nullities.
- Prohibition lies against an inferior tribunal exceeding or lacking jurisdiction, and only certiorari can quash a decision already made.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari removing into the High Court and quashing the proceedings and ex-parte order made by the Rent Restriction Tribunal on 4th June, 2015 in Rent Restriction Case No. 437 of 2015
- 2.An order of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from hearing or continuing to hear and/or making determination of the suit and application in Rent Restriction Case No. 437 of 2015
- 3.Costs of the application to be paid by the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (Fair Administrative Action/statutory orders of certiorari and prohibition) pursuant to leave granted on 22nd June, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Peterson Ouma Olum & 2 others exparte Mary Wambua [2017] KEELC 1168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 2nd July, 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1168/eng@2017-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.