Makiyi Properties Limited vs Salvation Healing Ministry
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that a tribunal which finds it lacks jurisdiction cannot make any further orders, and set aside the tribunal's decision against Makiyi Properties.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the tribunal erred in issuing consequential orders after finding it lacked jurisdiction
Yes. Having declared want of jurisdiction over what had become a land ownership dispute, the tribunal could not lawfully order release of attached goods and maintenance of status quo.
Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation; without it a court must down tools and cannot make one more step. The tribunal had found the dispute was now an environment and land matter outside section 12 of Cap 301. Issuing consequential orders releasing the goods and maintaining status quo exceeded its powers and prejudiced the appellant's accrued rent claim.
Whether the tribunal could reopen a dismissed reference via the application dated 12.12.2024
No. The application did not seek correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes but a total overhaul of the earlier order, and the tribunal had already rendered its final decision.
Section 12 of Cap 301 permits variation or rescission of orders, and section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The impugned application was not of that character; it amounted to a total overhaul of the order to the appellant's detriment. Finality of litigation, as upheld in Telkom Kenya v John Ochanda, barred reopening.
Costs of the appeal
Costs follow events under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and were awarded to the successful appellant, including costs of the application dated 12.12.2024.
The court applied the trite principle that costs follow events and are payable to the successful party pursuant to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010, and taking into account the circumstances of the case awarded costs to the appellant.
Legal principles established
#- A tribunal that has declared want of jurisdiction cannot take any further step or issue consequential orders in the matter.
- The BPRT is a creature of statute with limited jurisdiction confined to controlled tenancies; its powers cannot be implied.
- Once the landlord-tenant relationship no longer exists, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such matters.
- An application that overhauls a prior order rather than correcting clerical errors cannot be sustained under section 12 of Cap 301 or section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling and decision by Hon. Andrew Muma (member of the BPRT-Nairobi) delivered on 17th April 2025 in Nairobi BPRT Case no. E572 of 2024 and all consequential orders issued thereto be and are hereby set aside and vacated
- 2.The costs of the Appeal and the application dated 12.12.2024 are awarded to the Appellant
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Nairobi
- BPRT NO. E572 OF 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makiyi Properties Limited vs Salvation Healing Ministry", Case Analysis (2026). Case No ELCLA/E089/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6003/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.