keelc-2026-00588

the interested party acquiring occupation, it was her contention the Tribunal had been notified there is a tenancy. 4. The interested party on her part filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 16th September 2024 on the basis that the application ofiends the provisions of Section 9(2) and (3) of the Fair Administrative Act which provides that the High Court cannot review an administrative action unless all other available remedies have been exhausted. It was her contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter which should have been raised at the Tribunal. 5. Counsel for the Applicant filed submissions which the court has considered. Counsel submitted that this court is vested with supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal under Article 165 of the Constitution. That since the Applicant sought to challenge the process of decision making this court was the proper forum to hear the matter not wait for an appeal which would also deal with the substance. 6. The twin issues for determination are whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the Judicial Review and secondly whether the application for leave to file judicial review is merited. 7. On the question of jurisdiction, the Rent Restriction Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body which is subject to the supervision of the Environment and Land Court. The question, then, is what is the scope of judicial review? 8. In Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001 the Court of Appeal expressed itself as follows: “ Judicial review is concerned with the decision making process, not with the merits of the decision itself: the Court would concern itself with such issues as to whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction, whether the persons afiected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision the decision maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters…The court should not act as a Court of Appeal over the decider which would involve going into the merits of the decision itself-such as whether there was or there was not suficient evidence to support the decision…It is the duty of the decision maker to comply with the law in coming to its decision, and common sense and fairness demands that once the decision is made, it is his duty to bring it to the attention of those afiected by it more so where the decision maker is not a limited liability company created for commercial purposes but it statutory body which can only do what is authorised by the statute creating it and in the manner authorised by statute.” 9. In the instant case, the issues for determination center on the jurisdiction and alleged breach of natural justice. Judicial review is thus the appropriate remedy which this court is vested with jurisdiction to determine. I therefore find that this court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. 10. On the question of leave, Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that no application for judicial review orders should be made unless leave of the court was sought and granted. The reason for the leave was explained by Waki J. (as he then was), in Republic v County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others, Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996 as follows: “The purpose of application for leave to apply for judicial review is firstly to eliminate at an early stage any applications for judicial review which are either frivolous, vexatious or hopeless and secondly to ensure that the applicant is only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. The requirement that leave must be obtained before making an application for judicial review is designed to prevent the time of the court being wasted by busy bodies with misguided or trivial complaints or administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/588/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 3

oficers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived… Leave may only be granted therefore if on the material available the court is of the view, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the applicant the test being whether there is a case fit for further investigation at a full inter parties hearing of the substantive application for judicial review. It is an exercise of the court’s discretion but as always it has to be exercised judicially”. 11. The threshold for grant of leave is that one must only demonstrate an arguable case. Jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Act is limited. Where a tribunal acts outside its statutory mandate, its decision is void. In Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, the Court held: “ Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.” 12. Whether the Tribunal properly assumed jurisdiction where the rent payable was Kshs. 60,000 raises a serious jurisdictional question. While the Respondent argues that standard rent is distinct from agreed rent, this contention itself raises a jurisdictional fact requiring interrogation. The issuance of eviction orders without notice is similarly an issue in respect of which a party needs to be heard. 13. In the end the court makes the following orders; a. The Preliminary Objection is dismissed. b. Leave is hereby granted to the Ex Parte Applicant to apply for Judicial Review orders. Certiorari to remove into this court and quash all proceedings, the decision, and orders made on 4th July 2024 in the Rent Restriction Tribunal no E534 of 2024, Nairobi Consolata Nabwire Onyango v Mercy Kagendo Simiyu. c. The applicant Mercy Kagendo Simiyu is granted leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of prohibition prohibiting the Respondent from hearing and determining Rent Restriction Tribunal E534 of 2024. d. That leave do operate as stay of proceedings. e. The substantive Notice of Motion shall be filed and served within twenty-one (21) days from the date hereof. f. Costs shall be in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE. In The Presence Of: N/A for the Applicant. N/A for the Respondent Peter – Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/588/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 3