[2024] KEBPRT 1475 (KLR)
The Tribunal held that once it determined it lacked jurisdiction and directed the parties to pursue remedies under the Refugees Act, it could not revisit or clarify its previous ruling. Any orders previously issued were vacated, and the status reverted to that before the proceedings commenced. The application for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEBPRT 1475 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdi Mohammed Ahmed; Respondent: JK Nguli; Respondent: Hassan Mohammed Hassan; Respondent: Hamdi Mohammed Ali
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E110 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- P May
- Legal Topics
- Business Premises Rent, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Doctrine of Exhaustion, Eviction Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdi Mohammed Ahmed
Applicant
JK Nguli
Respondent
Hassan Mohammed Hassan
Respondent
Hamdi Mohammed Ali
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal can clarify or vary its previous ruling after having determined it lacked jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to further orders regarding the relationship between the parties, including eviction, after the Tribunal downed its tools.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of exhaustion applies to require the applicant to pursue remedies under the Refugees Act before approaching the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that once it determined it lacked jurisdiction and directed the parties to pursue remedies under the Refugees Act, it could not revisit or clarify its previous ruling. Any orders previously issued were vacated, and the status reverted to that before the proceedings commenced. The application for clarification was found to be a misconceived attempt to re-engage the Tribunal's jurisdiction, contrary to the doctrine of exhaustion and the finality of its earlier ruling. The Tribunal dismissed the application with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 24/11/2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Ahmed v Nguli & 2 others (Tribunal Case E110 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 1475 (KLR) (4 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEBPRT 1475 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E110 of 2023
P May, Member
October 4, 2024
Between
Abdi Mohammed Ahmed
Tenant
and
JK Nguli
1st Respondent
Hassan Mohammed Hassan
2nd Respondent
Hamdi Mohammed Ali
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Tribunal delivered a ruling in this matter on 4th September, 2023. The applicant was aggrieved by the said ruling and has made an application vide the notice of motion dated 24/11/2023 to have the Tribunal clarify the said ruling. This presents a dicey situation for Tribunal as it has to proceed with caution lest it sits on its on appeal.
2. The applicant has sought clarification over the interpretation of the contents of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the ruling. I have perused the said ruling. The same was to the largest extent drafted in plain English. With the greatest respect to the applicant and the firm of Billy Amendi and Company Advocates which firm drafted the pleadings including the present application, the application is misconceived. The ruling delivered on 4/9/2023, just like another other decisions of the Tribunal considered the positions set out by the parties. The applicant however, it would seem was determined to only consider their one-side of the story. The issue of them getting alternative premises was for instance mentioned under paragraph 9 of the replying affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent on 27/2/2023.
3. It would seem like the applicant herein failed to appreciate the responses filed by the respondents and the peculiar legal regime which provided for redress mechanisms that governed both the applicant and the respondents. The application in my view is a subtle attempt to bestow the Tribunal with jurisdiction even where it has expressly found that the parties were to pursue remedies prescribed under the Refugees Act before instituting the present proceedings. This is in line with the doctrine of exhaustion.
4. Once the Tribunal downed its tools, any orders that had been issued previously stood vacated. The status reverted to the one before the proceedings commenced. The Tribunal therefore cannot be led to make any determination on the relationship between the parties herein including the alleged eviction.
5. In the circumstances, the application dated 24/11/2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2024HON. PATRICIAL MAYMEMBER4. 10. 2024Delivered in the presence of Ms. Khamalla holding brief for Amendi for the Tenant/ApplicantIn the absence of the Respondents