Republic v Chairperson, Rent Restriction Tribunal & 3 others; Great Mwanzo Properties & Management Valuers Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed Golden Valley's attempt to quash a Rent Restriction Tribunal order, ruling the company should have appealed instead of going to judicial review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Ex-parte Applicant has established grounds for grant of orders of Certiorari and Prohibition to quash the 1st Respondent's Order issued on 17th October 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned direction of 17th October 2024 was subject to quashing by certiorari and prohibition
The application was dismissed; the direction was an interlocutory enforcement step taken within the Tribunal's mandate and no natural justice breach was established
The court found the orders of 17th October 2024 were interlocutory, merely directing provision of CR12 documents to identify directors for possible enforcement if disobedience persisted. The Applicant had filed a defence and was represented before the Tribunal, so it was heard. The Tribunal acted to protect the tenant and enforce its earlier orders, which the Applicant and 2nd Interested Party had disobeyed. No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was demonstrated.
Whether the application offended the doctrine of exhaustion
Yes; the Applicant should have pursued the appeal under Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act rather than seek judicial review
Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act guarantees a right of appeal to any aggrieved party, and Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act bars judicial review unless internal mechanisms and remedies under other written law are first exhausted. The Applicant opted for certiorari and prohibition instead of appealing to the Environment and Land Court, in breach of the exhaustion doctrine.
Whether judicial review lay to challenge the merits of the impugned order
No; judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Umoja Consultants and Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service, the court held that judicial review examines process (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety) rather than the correctness of the decision. The Applicant was in substance challenging the merits of the order, which does not fall within the ambit of judicial review.
Legal principles established
#- A party who participated in proceedings before a tribunal and was granted audience cannot claim violation of the rules of natural justice
- Where adequate internal review and appellate remedies exist under a statute, a party must exhaust them before seeking judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 11th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act (order of certiorari and prohibition)
Relief refused
#Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Deputy Chairperson, Rent Restriction Tribunal of 17th October 2024 directing provision of CR12 documents for issuance of warrants of arrest
The impugned orders were interlocutory enforcement steps; the Applicant participated in the Tribunal proceedings and was heard; no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; and the Applicant bypassed adequate appellate and review remedies
Order of Prohibition restraining the 1st Respondent and members of the Rent Restriction Tribunal from further proceedings against the directors of the Ex-parte Applicant
Prohibition will not lie absent a jurisdictional fault; the Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate
Costs
The instant Notice of Motion application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it with costs.
since the ex parte Applicant participated in the proceedings before the 1st Respondent and was granted audience, it cannot argue that the rules of natural justice were violated
the Ex parte Applicant's instant application violates the doctrine of exhaustion as stipulated under section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, since there are adequate review and appellate remedies available in law
Judicial Review is concerned with the decision making process, not with the merits of the decision itself.
I do not find that there was any 'irrationality' or 'unreasonableness' on the part of the 1st Respondent as it acted within its legal mandate
Issues in the judgment
#The 2nd Respondent is not expressly identified in the judgment; only the '1st Respondent' (Deputy Chairperson/Rent Restriction Tribunal) is named, though a replying affidavit is described as filed by 'the 1st and 2nd Respondents'
The judgment appears internally inconsistent in attributing disobedience of orders: it states the Applicant and 2nd Interested Party disobeyed orders granted by the '1st Interested Party' rather than the Tribunal
The judgment is dated 26th February 2026 while the motion was dated 11th November 2024 and case number is E032 of 2024; the date is as printed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairperson, Rent Restriction Tribunal & 3 others; Great Mwanzo Properties & Management Valuers Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR E032 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1058/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.