[2018] KEELC 2603 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's grievances regarding the conduct of the Rent Restriction Tribunal and the respondent's alleged contempt are matters that fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and should be addressed there. The application for contempt is still pending before the Tribunal, and any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2603 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Kamau Ndegwa; Respondent: Halima Abdinoor & Another
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 291 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Bring Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Leave, Rent Restriction Tribunal, Contempt of Court, Tenant Landlord Disputes
- 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
Jackson Kamau Ndegwa
Applicant
Halima Abdinoor & Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Bring Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to bring an application for judicial review against the proceedings and orders of the Rent Restriction Tribunal.
- 2 Whether judicial review is the appropriate remedy for challenging the Tribunal's handling of contempt proceedings and alleged improper pleadings by the respondent.
- 3 Whether the applicant's grievances should be addressed through appeal rather than judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's grievances regarding the conduct of the Rent Restriction Tribunal and the respondent's alleged contempt are matters that fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and should be addressed there. The application for contempt is still pending before the Tribunal, and any dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's rulings or handling of pleadings should be pursued through the appellate process, not by way of judicial review. The court emphasized that judicial review is not a substitute for an appeal and is only available in cases of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, none of which were established by the applicant. Accordingly, the application...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to bring judicial review is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2017
JACKSON KAMAU NDEGWA.................PETITIONER
=VERSUS=
HALIMA ABDINOOR & ANOTHER...RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect of an application for leave to bring an application for judicial review orders. The application had been filed before the Judicial Review Division of the High Court which referred it to the Environment & Land Court on 24th April 2017. Before the application for leave could be considered, the applicant filed a Notice of motion dated 16th May 2017. The applicant was asked to serve the Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2017 for interpartes hearing.
2. When the Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2017, came up for interpartes hearing on 24. 10. 2017, the applicant prayed for leave to amend the Notice of Motion. That leave was granted but when the matter came up for directions on 29th November 2017, the applicant made a clarification to court that he had asked to make amendments to the Judicial Review application and not the notice of motion dated 16th May 2017. The applicant was then allowed to amend the judicial Review application.
3. The matter was in Court on 29th January 2018 when Mr Kithinji through Mr Macharia applied for leave to file a response to the application dated 16th May 2017. The matter was adjourned to 6th February 2018 when all parties did not appear before the court. The court adjourned the application dated 16th May 2017 to 23rd May 2018 and directed the court to serve the parties. When the parties herein appeared before me, the applicant insisted on proceeding with the application for judicial review. I took time to peruse the court file and asked the applicant what he intended to do with his application of 16th May 2017 now that he was insisting on proceeding with the application for judicial review. He (applicant) then informed the court that he had decided not to proceed with the application of 16th May 2017.
4. I have now gone through the applicant’s application dated 11th September 2017 and filed in court on 30th November 2017. The application is an ex-parte application for leave to bring an application for judicial review. After going through the application, I notice that the applicant had filed another application for leave to bring an application for judicial review through J R No. 127 of 2017. The application was struck out for being frivolous. He brought a notice of motion which was also dismissed. This is as per what he has disclosed in this application.
5. The applicant was a tenant of the respondent. There were proceedings before the Rent Restriction Tribunal. The Tribunal issued certain orders, on 18th August 2016 and 20th April 2017. It is the applicant’s contention that the respondent disobeyed those orders. He filed an application for contempt of court which application has not been heard and that the Tribunal has subsequently entertained the respondent who filed proceedings in Rent Restriction case No.54 of 2016 for assessment of rent before she could purge the contempt.
6. The application for contempt is yet to be heard. The applicant seems to be unhappy with the manner in which the Tribunal Chairman is handling the whole issue. The applicant seems to be complaining that the respondent is an imposter who is not a landlady. The applicant also seems to complain about a ruling delivered by the Tribunal on 8th September 2016 which he contends was based on invalid pleadings filed by the respondent’s advocate.
7. The Tribunal is yet to find the respondent guilty of contempt. That application has to be heard by the Tribunal. If there was any application which was decided based on incompetent pleadings, that is a matter which can be best addressed through appeal and not through judicial review. A party cannot be prevented from filing pleadings in a court or Tribunal with competent jurisdiction. The Court cannot therefore subject separate proceedings which have been commenced by a litigant to judicial review process when no grounds exist for such an action. I therefore find no merit in the applicant’s application for leave which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
It is so ordered
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 31stday of May 2018.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of :-
Applicant in person
Court Assistant: Hilda
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE