Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review Motion dated 6/10/2021 (Nairobi Rent Restrictions Tribunal Case No. E533 of 2021)· [2022] KEELC 167 (KLR)

Republic v Tribunal; Commodity World Limited (Exparte); Onsoti & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 167 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 May 2022
BEB M Eboso
2,494 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Rent Restriction Tribunal cannot hear tenancy disputes above KShs 2,500 standard monthly rent without first assessing standard rent; orders issued otherwise are quashed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Commodity World Limited, the exparte applicant, sought certiorari to quash the proceedings and orders of the Rent Restriction Tribunal in Case No. E533 of 2021 and prohibition against further adjudication, on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over a tenancy with a monthly rent of Kshs 28,000, granted exparte orders without hearing the applicant, and committed procedural irregularities. The 1st interested party, a tenant, opposed, contending she was confused by conflicting payment instructions after a change of ownership, that the standard rent had never been assessed, and that the applicant should have moved the Tribunal to set aside its orders rather than resorting to judicial review. The court framed two issues: whether the Tribunal committed procedural illegalities, and whether the judicial review motion was the proper platform for redress. Applying Section 2(1) of the Rent Restriction Act, which confines the Tribunal to standard rents not exceeding Kshs 2,500 monthly, and following prior High Court and ELC decisions, the court held the Tribunal was obliged to first assess the standard rent before assuming jurisdiction. Since the rent of Kshs 28,000 had been disclosed, the Tribunal acted illegally. The court also held the motion was properly brought under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The motion was allowed: certiorari quashed the injunctive orders; prohibition issued until standard rent is assessed; the 1st interested party was left free to pursue a court of competent jurisdiction; and each party bore their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Want of jurisdiction by the Rent Restriction Tribunal

Holding

The Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by issuing exparte orders in a tenancy where the disclosed monthly rent was Kshs 28,000 without first assessing the standard rent

Reasoning

Section 2(1) of the Rent Restriction Act confines the Tribunal to dwellings with a standard rent not exceeding Kshs 2,500 monthly. The 1st interested party disclosed the Kshs 28,000 rent in her plaint, affidavit and lease. The Tribunal was therefore obligated to first assess standard rent before assuming jurisdiction; failing that, its proceedings were procedurally illegal.

p. 5
02

Suitability of judicial review as the remedy

Holding

The judicial review motion before the Environment and Land Court was a proper platform for redress against the Tribunal's procedural illegalities

Reasoning

Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act empowers the court to issue prerogative orders against public bodies, tribunals and magistrates' courts. Since the suit challenged the procedure adopted by the Tribunal where the prevailing rent was prima facie outside its jurisdiction, the motion was properly brought. The court further held the 1st interested party, who knew the rent and the Tribunal's limits, bore the obligation to seek assessment of standard rent.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Rent Restriction Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction is capped at a standard rent of Kshs 2,500 per month and it must assess standard rent before assuming jurisdiction where the agreed rent exceeds that figure
  • Jurisdiction is everything; a tribunal without jurisdiction must down its tools and its proceedings are nullities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari quashing all injunctive orders issued by the Rent Restriction Tribunal in Nairobi Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No E533 of 2021
  2. 2.Prohibition against the Rent Restriction Tribunal adjudicating the dispute in Case No. E533 of 2021 until the standard rent is assessed and established not to exceed Kshs 2,500 per month
  3. 3.Leave granted to the 1st interested party to ventilate her grievances in a court of law seized of jurisdiction
  4. 4.Each party to bear their respective costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Rent Restriction ActSection 2(1)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13

Cases cited (4)

  • Phoenix of EA Assurance Limited v S M Thiga t/a Newspaper Service
    [2019] eKLR
  • Republic v Chairman Rent Restriction Tribunal; Samuel Joel Kibe & Another [interested parties] Exparte Charles Macharia Mugo
    [2019] eKLR
  • Johakim Abayo v Mokua Damacline Nyamoita
    [2021] eKLR
  • Desai v. Warsama
    [1967] E.A 351
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (judicial review/prerogative orders against tribunals)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Tribunal; Commodity World Limited (Exparte); Onsoti & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Motion dated 6/10/2021 (Nairobi Rent Restrictions Tribunal Case No. E533 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/167/eng@2022-05-16

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