Suriya & 3 others v Tribunal & another; Iqbaal (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6095 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed landlords' attempt to overturn a rent tribunal decision through judicial review, saying their appeal is the proper route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of judicial review versus appeal
The applicants' complaints require re-examination of the merits and are best pursued on appeal, not judicial review
The court examined the record and found both parties participated in the hearing before the tribunal, including on the jurisdictional objection which the tribunal dismissed on 18/7/24 as raising questions of fact. The grievances about evidence and jurisdiction require in-depth re-examination of proceedings, for which the pending appeal provides a broader remedy. Judicial review being discretionary, it will not issue where it serves no useful purpose.
Availability of prohibition
Prohibition is unavailable because the tribunal has delivered its judgment and there are no ongoing proceedings
Relying on the Gathenji decision, the court held that prohibition looks to the future and cannot quash a decision already made. Since the impugned judgment of 20/1/25 concluded the tribunal proceedings, an order of prohibition would be futile.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision; where an appeal is pending, judicial review may be declined as an ineffective discretionary remedy
- Prohibition cannot quash a decision already made; it only prevents a contemplated decision
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 7/4/25 is merited
- 2.The judicial review application dated 21/2/25 is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7)(b) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 53 CPR and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Article 23 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Suriya & 3 others v Tribunal & another; Iqbaal (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6095 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application dated 21/2/25 (re Nairobi BPRT No E095 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6095/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.