[2025] KEHC 194 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain judicial review applications against decisions of the Rent Restriction Tribunal, as the Rent Restriction Act, as amended, provides for appeals to the Environment and Land Court. The applicant's recourse should have been by way of appeal to the appropriate court, not by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beatrice Kirigo Chege; Respondent: Rent Restriction Tribunal; Respondent: Esther Kaluki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Application E133 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Jurisdiction of Courts, Rent Restriction Tribunal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- 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
Beatrice Kirigo Chege
Applicant
Rent Restriction Tribunal
Respondent
Esther Kaluki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain judicial review applications against decisions of the Rent Restriction Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the proper procedure for challenging decisions of the Rent Restriction Tribunal is by way of appeal or judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain judicial review applications against decisions of the Rent Restriction Tribunal, as the Rent Restriction Act, as amended, provides for appeals to the Environment and Land Court. The applicant's recourse should have been by way of appeal to the appropriate court, not by judicial review in the High Court. Consequently, the application was filed in a court without jurisdiction and in a manner not provided for in law, rendering it incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The application dated 29/5/2024 is struck out.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Chege v Rent Restriction Tribunal & another (Judicial Review Application E133 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 194 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (17 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 194 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Application E133 of 2024
RE Aburili, J
January 17, 2025
Between
Beatrice Kirigo Chege
Applicant
and
Rent Restriction Tribunal
1st Respondent
Esther Kaluki
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant filed the application dated 29/5/2024 on 18/6/2024 seeking for leave to apply for Judicial Review Orders of certiorari and prohibition, challenging the decision of the Rent Restriction Tribunal rendered on 3/6/2024 in RRC E1170 of 2023.
2. I have perused the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act (as amended).
3. The Sections provides for appeals against decision of the Tribunal and not Judicial Review. Furthermore, following the establishment and operationalization of the Environment and Land Court, the Act was amended to provide and confer jurisdiction to the Environment and Land Court, instead of the High Court as was the case, previously.
4. Accordingly, I find the application dated 29/5/2024 to be misplaced. It was filed in a court without jurisdiction and in a manner not provided for in law.
5. The application is struck out with no orders as to costs.
6. The file is closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE