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 8th March 2021 (Nairobi Rent Restriction Case No. 1774 of 2020 referenced)· [2022] KEELC 1355 (KLR)

Republic v Rent Restriction Tribunal Nairobi & another Ex parte Wangui Beatrice Kariuki [2022] KEELC 1355 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
16 February 2022
LMLucy N. Mbugua
1,177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court ruled the Rent Restriction Tribunal had no power over tenancies with rent above Kshs 2,500, quashing its orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, a landlord, obtained leave and filed a judicial review motion seeking certiorari to quash ex parte orders issued on 18th January 2021 by the Chairman of the Rent Restriction Tribunal in Nairobi Rent Restriction Case No. 1774 of 2020, prohibition against further prosecution of that case, a declaration that the orders were ultra vires and void, damages, expedition and costs. The dispute concerned premises LR No. Kiambaa/Ruaka/2680 Flat No. 3G, where the tenant was in arrears of Kshs. 721,000 as at October 2020 and the monthly rent was Kshs. 14,000 (Kshs. 11,000 when the tenancy commenced in 2013). The respondents filed no response or submissions, so the matter proceeded undefended. The court framed a single question: whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the suit and issue the 18th January 2021 orders. Applying the decision-making-process test from Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic, the court held that Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act caps the Tribunal's jurisdiction at a standard rent of Kshs. 2,500 per month; the rent here far exceeded that cap. Although the court found nothing wrong with the issuance of ex parte orders since they awaited an inter partes hearing, no standard rent assessment had been undertaken despite a direction to that effect. Any action taken without jurisdiction was held illegal and unconstitutional. The court allowed prayers (i), (ii) and (iii), ordered certiorari, prohibition and a declaration of invalidity, allowed the parties to pursue the dispute elsewhere, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal

Holding

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the standard rent (Kshs. 11,000-14,000 per month) exceeded the Kshs. 2,500 statutory cap and no standard rent assessment had been undertaken

Reasoning

Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act limits the Act and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to dwelling-houses with a standard rent not exceeding Kshs. 2,500 per month. The lease annexed showed a monthly rent of Kshs. 11,000. The court had directed the Tribunal to assess the standard rent, but there was no evidence any assessment was done. Actions taken without jurisdiction are illegal and unconstitutional.

p. 2
02

Validity of the ex parte orders

Holding

The ex parte orders were interlocutory, awaiting inter partes hearing, and their issuance was not in itself irregular

Reasoning

The applicant complained that the orders of 18th January 2021 were issued ex parte without an opportunity to be heard. The court found the orders were not final since they awaited an inter partes hearing, and found nothing wrong with issuing ex parte orders in those circumstances. The quashing ultimately rested on lack of jurisdiction, not the ex parte procedure.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
  • Actions taken by a tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction are illegal and unconstitutional

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Certiorari to quash the ex parte orders made by the Chairman, Rent Restriction Tribunal on 18th January 2021 in Nairobi Rent Restriction Case No. 1774 of 2020
  2. 2.Prohibition prohibiting Rent Restriction Case No. 1774 of 2020 from further proceeding with hearing and determination
  3. 3.Declaration that the ex parte orders were invalid (ultra vires), void and of no effect
  4. 4.Parties at liberty to table the dispute before a forum of competent jurisdiction
  5. 5.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Rent Restriction Act (Cap 296)Section 2
  • Rent Restriction Act (Cap 296)Section 2(1)
  • Rent Restriction Act (Cap 296)Section 5(1)(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & another
    [2002] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (leave granted 18th February 2021)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Rent Restriction Tribunal Nairobi & another Ex parte Wangui Beatrice Kariuki [2022] KEELC 1355 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Motion dated 8th March 2021 (Nairobi Rent Restriction Case No. 1774 of 2020 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1355/eng@2022-02-16

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