Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (Judicial Review proceedings, High Court)· [2026] KEELC 3295 (KLR)

Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another; Acacia Supermarket Limited & 2 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E080 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3295 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
2 June 2026
2,314 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court confirmed you cannot get an injunction or status quo order in a judicial review case in Kenya — those are civil claim remedies.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st to 3rd ex-parte applicants raised a preliminary objection dated 23rd December, 2025 against three chamber summons applications filed by the interested party, Acacia Supermarket Limited, dated 11th, 15th and 22nd December, 2025. The interested party sought status quo orders, stay of eviction, distress or forfeiture, re-opening of premises allegedly closed on 12th December, 2025, and mandatory and temporary injunctions restoring quiet possession of premises on the 1st and 2nd floors of Acacia Pavilion, pending determination of the substantive judicial review motion. The substantive motion, filed after leave granted on 4th December, 2025, sought certiorari and prohibition against the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in respect of Nairobi BPRT Reference no. E1240 of 2025. Justice C.G. Mbogo held the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law on jurisdiction, applying Mukisa Biscuits, Musakali and Lillian S. The court found that judicial review proceedings are sui generis public law remedies, and that the remedies sought were private law remedies against individuals, anchored in a lease dated 18th April, 2025, which can only be pursued through a civil claim. Relying on Econet Wireless and Cortec Mining, the court held that the Law Reform Act and Order 53 do not authorize the grant of injunctions in judicial review. The three chamber summons applications were dismissed with costs to the 1st to 3rd ex-parte applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the High Court sitting as a judicial review court can grant interim injunctive and status quo orders in private disputes between landlord and tenant

Holding

It cannot; the remedies sought were private law remedies against individuals arising from a lease, not public law remedies

Reasoning

Judicial review is sui generis and a public law remedy through which the High Court supervises subordinate courts, tribunals and public bodies. The interested party's applications sought relief against individuals grounded in a lease agreement, remedies available only through a civil claim. The substantive motion challenged the BPRT's decision-making process, not the lease. Authorities confirm injunctions fall outside Section 8 of the Law Reform Act.

p. 5
02

Whether the preliminary objection was a pure point of law

Holding

Yes; it challenged jurisdiction without requiring trial of disputed facts

Reasoning

Relying on Mukisa Biscuits and Musakali, the court held the objection raised a pure point of law with potential to dispose of the applications without trial, as it challenged jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the foundation for the exercise of judicial authority; where it is absent, the court has no basis to proceed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Injunctions, whether temporary or final, cannot be granted in judicial review proceedings under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Jurisdiction is foundational; a court without jurisdiction must down its tools

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The chamber summons dated 11th December, 2025, 15th December, 2025 and 22nd December, 2025 are hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st to 3rd exparte applicants
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (leave granted on 4th December, 2025)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another; Acacia Supermarket Limited & 2 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E080 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3295 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Judicial Review proceedings, High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3295/eng@2026-06-02

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