Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Misc No. 114 of 2018 (Judgment)· [2022] KEELC 2289 (KLR)

Republic v Mboroki; Westelco Limited (Exparte); Navdeep Singh Mehta T/A Kensun Enterprises (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 2289 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2022
1,305 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

#

A landlord who loses at Kenya's Business Premises Rent Tribunal must appeal, not file judicial review, because the court dismissed the attempt with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, Westelco Limited, landlord of premises occupied by Navdeep Singh Mehta t/a Kensun Enterprises, sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Chairman of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in BPRT Case No. 453 of 2014. The tenant had filed a reference before the tribunal seeking restraint against termination and eviction; the landlord's preliminary objection contending that the premises were not a 'shop' under Section 2 of Cap 301 and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction was dismissed by a ruling of 20 February 2015, and the tribunal ultimately upheld the tenant's claim in a judgment of 26 January 2018. The landlord argued that Section 12(4) of Cap 301 barred an appeal, leaving judicial review as the sole avenue, since the tribunal had determined the matter outside its statutory mandate. The interested party countered that a rent inspector had found the premises to be a shop, rendering the decision intra vires. The court, Lucy N. Mbugua J, disregarded the respondent's submissions for want of a response and held that the jurisdictional ruling was a determination, not a 'complaint' under Section 12(4), and was therefore appealable. Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa and Ahmad v Kadhi Mombasa, the court found the application amounted to pure grounds of appeal dressed as judicial review, pursued only because the applicant lost before the tribunal. The application was dismissed with costs to the interested party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act barred an appeal, leaving judicial review as the only recourse

Holding

No - the dismissal of the preliminary objection was a determination, not a 'complaint' of a minor character, and was therefore appealable.

Reasoning

The court relied on Gatanga General Store and Re-Heptulla Proberties Ltd, holding that Section 12(4) 'complaints' cover only minor matters such as cutting off water or obstructing access. The jurisdictional ruling of 20.2.2015 was a determination on a contested question, attracting a right of appeal rather than exclusive judicial review.

p. 3
02

Whether the judicial review application was an abuse of process as a disguised appeal

Holding

Yes - the applicant was aggrieved by the tribunal's decision and was pursuing pure grounds of appeal, which do not warrant certiorari absent illegality, irrationality, ultra vires or procedural impropriety.

Reasoning

Applying Mativo J in Ahmad v Kadhi Mombasa and the Municipal Council of Mombasa scope-of-review principle, the court found no flagrant abuse of legal principle or grave injustice. The same arguments on jurisdiction had already been determined by the tribunal; relitigating them seven years later simply because the applicant lost the main suit is a way of appealing the jurisdictional ruling.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision; mere grounds of appeal do not found judicial review relief.
  • A determination on a preliminary objection is not a 'complaint' under Section 12(4) of Cap 301; an aggrieved party has a right of appeal against determinations.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit (Judicial Review application for certiorari) is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the interested party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) ActSection 2
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)Section 12(4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Gatanga General Store & 2 others v Githere
    [1988] eKLR
  • Re-Heptulla Proberties Ltd
    [1979] eKLR
  • Mike Muli v Justus Mwandikwa Kilonzo & 4 others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Ahmad & another v Kadhi Mombasa; Khalifa & another (Interested parties)
    (Judicial Review 4 of 2020) [2021] KEHC 133 (KLR)
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic And Another
    [2002] eKLR
  • Kiplangat Korir v Dennis Kipngeno Mutai
    [2006] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court (orders of certiorari); leave granted 12.11.2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Mboroki; Westelco Limited (Exparte); Navdeep Singh Mehta T/A Kensun Enterprises (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 2289 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Misc No. 114 of 2018 (Judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2289/eng@2022-06-23

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