James Kirugi v Chairman, Rent Restriction Tribunal & another [2020] KEELC 789 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A tenant lost his bid to overturn a Rent Restriction Tribunal decision because he never used the review and appeal routes the law already provides.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Failure to exhaust statutory remedies
The application was an abuse of process because the applicant did not seek review under Section 5(1)(m) nor appeal under Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act as required by Section 9(2) and (3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act
The Rent Restriction Act provides an internal mechanism under Section 5(1)(m) for reopening or varying decisions, and a right of appeal to the Environment and Land Court under Section 8(2). Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act bars judicial review where such mechanisms are unexhausted. The applicant pursued neither and pointed to no exceptional circumstances, so the suit would have been struck out.
Jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal and the meaning of 'standard rent'
The Tribunal applies to dwelling-houses with a standard rent not exceeding KShs. 2,500/=, but standard rent is a calculated figure, not the actual rent; the applicant produced no evidence of the standard rent, so no jurisdictional defect was demonstrated
Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act limits the Act to dwelling-houses whose standard rent does not exceed KShs. 2,500/=, but Section 3 defines standard rent by reference to letting as at 1 January 1981 or assessment based on cost of construction and land value. The actual rent of KShs. 15,000/= is not necessarily the standard rent. The applicant, having also failed to argue his preliminary objection before the Tribunal, offered no material on the standard rent.
Legal principles established
#- Parties must exhaust the remedies, including internal review and appeal mechanisms, provided in the statute upon which their case is founded before seeking judicial review, save in exceptional cases
- The 'standard rent' under the Rent Restriction Act is not the actual rent payable and must be calculated; a party alleging the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction must prove what the standard rent is
Court orders
#- 1.The ex parte applicant's judicial review application is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- 2.The stay orders issued herein are vacated
- 3.The 2nd respondent is at liberty to execute the judgment of the Rent Restriction Tribunal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Fair Administrative Actions Act, Section 9
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Kirugi v Chairman, Rent Restriction Tribunal & another [2020] KEELC 789 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Rent Restriction Case No. 97 of 2019 (subject matter); Judicial Review application filed 28 February 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/789/eng@2020-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.