SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Rent Restriction Tribunal & 2 others Ex Parte Evans Nyahoro,Paul Kinuthia Kilundi [2018] KEHC 9003 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9003 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
9003
Citation
[2018] KEHC 9003 (KLR)
Decided
16 March 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for judicial reviewCoramNot specified in the text
Holding

The Rent Restriction Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter as it was given an ex parte order without giving the Respondent an opportunity to determine its jurisdiction.

Facts

The applicants, Evans Nyahoro and Paul Kinuthia Kilundi, sought judicial review of an ex parte order given by the Rent Restriction Tribunal. The order was challenged on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the monthly rents in issue exceeding the amount for which the Tribunal can invoke its jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal
  2. Exhaustion of remedies

Reasoning

The court held that a party challenging the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal must raise the issue before the court whose jurisdiction is under challenge, and that the mere fact of lack of jurisdiction does not bar the court from hearing and determining the issue of jurisdiction.

Outcome

The ex parte application was dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is an abuse of the principles of judicial review and is meant to ground the operations of the Rent Restriction Tribunal.

Remedies

  • The interested parties’ case

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, No. 4 of 2015
  • Rent Restriction Act, Cap 296 Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (1)
  • Owners and Masters of The Motor Vessel “Joey” vs. Owners and Masters of The Motor Tugs “Barbara” and “Steve B” [2008] 1 EA 367
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case