Obwari Enterprises Limited & another v Business Premises Rent Tribunal; Anyoso (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 343 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court quashed Business Premises Rent Tribunal proceedings because the tribunal had no jurisdiction — no valid landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties before it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the BPRT had jurisdiction over Tribunal Case E193 of 2025
The Tribunal had no jurisdiction because there was no tenancy relationship between the parties before it; the tenancy agreement relied on was between Juvama International Limited and Selina Omutasyi Akhabochi, different parties from those in the tribunal proceedings, and in any event the term of 5 years and 3 months exceeded the five-year limit for controlled tenancies.
The court examined the tenancy agreement dated 15th April 2019 and found its parties did not correspond with those in the tribunal case, with no explanation linking them. A tenancy agreement cannot bind non-executing parties. Additionally, the agreement's term of 5 years and 3 months fell outside the definition of a controlled tenancy under section 2 of Cap 301, which limits jurisdiction to tenancies not exceeding five years. The tribunal should therefore have declined jurisdiction when the issue was raised by preliminary objection.
Whether judicial review was premature given unexhausted alternative remedies
The exhaustion doctrine applies only within the context of bodies seized of jurisdiction; where jurisdiction is challenged and unresolved, judicial review is proper even before the tribunal makes a final determination.
While agreeing that a party must ordinarily exhaust available remedies, the court held that such exhaustion presupposes a body acting within jurisdiction. The applicants had raised jurisdiction by notice of preliminary objection dated 7th March 2025, yet the tribunal issued injunctive orders on 13th March 2025 without dispensing with the objection. Nothing stopped the applicants from approaching the High Court under judicial review before the tribunal pronounced itself on jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself.
- The duty to exhaust alternative remedies applies only where the tribunal or body is seized of jurisdiction; where jurisdiction is lacking and raised, a party may approach the High Court even before the tribunal rules on the issue.
- The jurisdiction of the BPRT is confined to controlled tenancies as defined under section 2 of Cap 301, including written tenancies for a period not exceeding five years.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Certiorari quashing the proceedings, directions and orders made by the respondent in BPRT Case No E193 OF 2025
- 2.An order of prohibition directed at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi from further having any conduct in Tribunal Case No E193 OF 2025
- 3.An order of stay of proceedings at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Tribunal Case No E193 OF 2025
- 4.Costs awarded to the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- High Court supervisory judicial review jurisdiction over tribunals
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obwari Enterprises Limited & another v Business Premises Rent Tribunal; Anyoso (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 343 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application - Chamber Summons dated 5th May 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/343/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.