Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Judicial Review Suit No. 18 of 2018· [2019] KEELC 1980 (KLR)

Republic v Deputy Chairman, Rent Restriction Tribunal & another; Teddy Ndumu & another (Interested Parties) Ex parte Benson Kanui & another [2019] KEELC 1980 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 July 2019
KBK. BOR
1,655 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Land Court ruled the Rent Restriction Tribunal had no power over a Kshs. 19,000 rent case, but refused to quash its orders because they no longer mattered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-Parte Applicants, landlords of a unit at Umoja 1 Innercore L.R No. 83/1883, sought an order of certiorari to quash orders issued ex parte on 05/03/2018 by the Deputy Chairman of the Rent Restriction Tribunal in Tribunal Case No. 310 of 2018, and prohibitions against the continuation and enforcement of those proceedings, on the grounds that the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction is limited to premises with monthly rent not exceeding Kshs. 2,500/= while the rent was Kshs. 19,000/=, and that final orders were issued ex parte contrary to natural justice. The Interested Parties opposed, deponing that their tenancy had never been validly terminated, that they had been locked out, and that their household goods had been confiscated and damaged; they also sought compensation of the balance between Kshs. 322,000/= and the Kshs. 97,500/= paid. The court applied the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' jurisdictional principle and held that, since the monthly rent of Kshs. 19,000/= exceeded the statutory limit, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue the orders of 5/3/2018. Nonetheless, finding that the Interested Parties were admittedly no longer in occupation, the court held that granting the orders sought would serve no useful purpose and declined to issue certiorari or prohibition. The court also declined the compensation request, directing the Interested Parties to file an ordinary claim for their lost or damaged goods. Each party was to bear its own costs. The judicial review application was dismissed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal

Holding

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over premises with a monthly rent of Kshs. 19,000/=, far exceeding the Kshs. 2,500/= statutory limit

Reasoning

The court applied the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' principle that jurisdiction must be decided on the material before it. It was not disputed that the rent was Kshs. 19,000/=, which exceeds the pecuniary limit set by Section 2(1)(c) of the Rent Restriction Act, so the orders of 5/3/2018 were made without jurisdiction. However, the court regretted that the point was not raised at the inter partes hearing before the Tribunal.

p. 2
02

Whether certiorari and prohibition should issue despite the finding on jurisdiction

Holding

The orders sought were refused because the Interested Parties were no longer in occupation and the orders would serve no useful purpose

Reasoning

Although the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction, judicial review is discretionary and remedial. It is an admitted fact that the Interested Parties are no longer in occupation of the premises, so quashing or prohibiting enforcement of the orders would be an exercise in futility. The proper avenue for the goods claim is an ordinary suit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A tribunal lacks jurisdiction where the monthly rent exceeds the statutory pecuniary limit of Kshs. 2,500/= under the Rent Restriction Act, and orders issued without jurisdiction are of no effect
  • A question of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and a court without jurisdiction must down its tools

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court declined to grant the orders sought in the application dated 18/4/2018
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 22; Article 23
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 53
  • Rent Restriction Act, Cap 296Section 2(1)(c)

Cases cited (1)

  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 22 and Article 23(3) of the Constitution; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy Chairman, Rent Restriction Tribunal & another; Teddy Ndumu & another (Interested Parties) Ex parte Benson Kanui & another [2019] KEELC 1980 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Judicial Review Suit No. 18 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1980/eng@2019-07-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.