Shade Manufacturers and Hotel Ltd v Matuu & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E081 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5194 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed that Tribunal rulings can only be challenged by appeal to that court, not by objections in a subordinate court.
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 Learned Trial Magistrate erred in declining to determine the Preliminary Objection
- 2.Whether the Chairperson of the Business Premises Tribunal had jurisdiction to tax the Party and Party costs
- 3.Whether the Appellant could challenge the legality of the Tribunal's taxation through a preliminary objection before the subordinate Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial magistrate erred in declining to determine the preliminary objection
No error; the objection invited the subordinate court to review a Tribunal decision, which it had no jurisdiction to do
The enforcement application was brought under Section 14(1) of Cap 301, which provides a mechanism for filing and enforcing Tribunal determinations as decrees. Determining the validity of the taxation would amount to exercising appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, powers the subordinate court does not possess. The proper remedy was an appeal to the ELC under Section 15.
Whether the BPRT Chairperson had jurisdiction to tax the party and party bill of costs
Yes; jurisdiction derived from Section 12(1)(k) of Cap 301, Regulation 18 of the Tribunal Regulations, and paragraph 2 and Schedule 8 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order
Paragraph 10 of the Remuneration Order applies to High Court and subordinate court bills. The Order separately applies to tribunals appointed under Cap 301 and prescribes a bespoke scale (Schedule 8) for Tribunal proceedings, with Regulation 18 directing the Chairperson to apply that scale. It would be incoherent for the Order to create a Tribunal costs scale if the Chairperson could not tax.
Whether the Appellant could challenge the taxation by preliminary objection in the subordinate court
No; the Appellant should have appealed to the ELC within 30 days under Section 15 of Cap 301
The Tribunal's taxation on 27th January 2021 was not appealed nor reviewed. The Appellant instead raised the challenge during enforcement proceedings before a court with no appellate jurisdiction over the Tribunal. A duly certified Tribunal order, once filed under Section 14(1), may be enforced as a decree subject only to the right of appeal conferred by the Act.
Legal principles established
#- The Chairperson of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to tax party and party bills of costs under Regulation 18 and Schedule 8 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order
- A subordinate court enforcing a Tribunal order under Section 14(1) of Cap 301 has no jurisdiction to review, vary or invalidate the Tribunal's order; the remedy is an appeal to the Environment and Land Court under Section 15
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (MCRTC)
- MCRTC/5/2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 15, Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301) - first appeal to the Environment and Land Court
Relief refused
#Setting aside/quashing the ruling of Hon. Becky Cheloti Mulemia delivered on 25th April 2025
The trial magistrate correctly declined jurisdiction over the Tribunal's taxation; the subordinate court has no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal
Declaration that the Preliminary Objection dated 5th March 2025 was merited
The Tribunal's Chairperson had jurisdiction to tax costs under Section 12(1)(k) of Cap 301, Regulation 18 and Schedule 8 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order
Costs
Appeal 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.
In the end, this Court finds that the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, with costs to the Respondents.
Accordingly, I find that the Chairperson of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal Court had jurisdiction to tax the Bill of Costs in Tribunal Case No. 95 of 2015.
The provision establishes a statutory mechanism for enforcement, through which a determination or order of the Tribunal may be filed in a competent subordinate court and enforced as a decree of that court, subject to the right of appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Date inconsistency: Appellant's submissions dated 10th July 2026 while the appeal record describes events of 2025; likely typographical but internally stated as such
Taxation date inconsistency: the judgment elsewhere records the Chairman taxed the bill in a ruling delivered on 14th December 2020, but also states the taxation was undertaken on 27th January 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shade Manufacturers and Hotel Ltd v Matuu & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E081 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5194 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E081 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5194/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.