Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC JR No. E057 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 3664 (KLR)

Republic v Chairperson, Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another; Shah & others (Also known as Kamalkumar C Shah & others) (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E057 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3664 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 June 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
2,847 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court refused to overturn a landlord-tenant tribunal's decisions because the applicant brought no tribunal proceedings proving the tribunal acted beyond its powers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, Pankaj Chhaganlal Shah, obtained leave on 28th July 2025 and filed a notice of motion dated 5th August 2025 under Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Articles 47, 48, 50(1) and 159 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus to compel the Business Premises Rent Tribunal to avail certified copies of rulings delivered on 28th July 2025 in BPRT E178 of 2025 and E553 of 2025, certiorari to quash the tribunal's decision of 27th June 2025 and further rulings of 28th July 2025, and prohibition restraining the tribunal from further entertaining BPRT Case Nos. E178 of 2025, E1071 of 2024 and E553 of 2025 concerning LR. No. 1/373, Senteu Plaza Kilimani. The applicant argued that the tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction after the 2nd respondent was evicted and could not reinstate a tenant into possession, and complained that orders were uploaded without the rulings and delivered months after eviction. No response was filed; the motion was canvassed by written submissions. The court, applying the Municipal Council of Mombasa case, held that judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits. It found that the applicant had placed no material demonstrating excess of power, and that without typed proceedings from the respective BPRT files the court could not determine whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, held a fair hearing, or issued proper notices; deciding otherwise would make the court an appellate forum. The motion was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal acted in excess of its powers

Holding

The application was dismissed because the ex-parte applicant failed to demonstrate any excess of power

Reasoning

Judicial review examines the process leading to a decision, not its merits. To assess whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, the court needed the typed proceedings from the respective BPRT files. The applicant produced no such material; the evidence tendered went only to the outcome of the tribunal's decisions. Deciding on such material would convert the court into an appellate forum. Accordingly, the applicant failed to demonstrate excess of power, lack of fair hearing, or missing notices.

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits; a review court may not act as an appellate court over the decision maker
  • An applicant for certiorari must place before the court material, such as typed proceedings, enabling the court to assess whether the subordinate tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 5th August 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 47, 48, 50(1) and 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chairperson, Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another; Shah & others (Also known as Kamalkumar C Shah & others) (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E057 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3664 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR No. E057 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3664/eng@2026-06-15

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