[2015] KERRT 6 (KLR)
The tribunal held that it cannot conclusively determine its jurisdiction without first establishing the standard rent as defined under Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act. The High Court precedent (J.R No. 191 of 2013) was followed, which clarified that the tribunal must assess standard rent before ruling on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KERRT 6 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Karangi Coftea Ltd; Defendant: Benard Ochari Nyachie & others
- Court
- Rent Restriction Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 67 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed; tribunal to proceed with standard rent assessment
- Judges
- HK KORIR
- Legal Topics
- Rent Restriction, Standard Rent Determination, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
- 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
Karangi Coftea Ltd
Plaintiff
Benard Ochari Nyachie & others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Rent Restriction Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application before determining standard rent.
- 2 Whether the applicant qualifies as a tenant under Cap 296 and has locus standi to bring the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal held that it cannot conclusively determine its jurisdiction without first establishing the standard rent as defined under Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act. The High Court precedent (J.R No. 191 of 2013) was followed, which clarified that the tribunal must assess standard rent before ruling on jurisdiction. The tribunal also found that the definition of 'tenant' under Cap 296 is broad and includes successors of the original tenant, thus the applicant had locus standi. Consequently, the preliminary objection was dismissed, and the tribunal valuer was directed to assess the standard rent within 30 days for further directions.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed; tribunal to proceed with standard rent assessment
Orders
- Preliminary objection is dismissed.
- Tribunal Valuer is directed to assess standard rent within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Karangi Coftea Ltd v Nyachie & others (Tribunal Case 67 of 2014) [2015] KERRT 6 (KLR) (15 October 2015) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2015] KERRT 6 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Rent Restriction Tribunal
Tribunal Case 67 of 2014
HK KORIR, Chair
October 15, 2015
Between
Karangi Coftea Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Benard Ochari Nyachie & others
Defendant
Ruling
1. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal Valuer with prior notification to both parties visited the premises for purposes of inspection on 22/10/2015.
2. In his Valuation Report dated 19/11/204 Standard Rent varying from Kshs. 25, 000/= to Kshs. 50, 000/= is recommended for the various units according to their sizes.
3. Being dissatisfied with the Valuation report aforesaid, the tenants commissioned an Independent Valuer to provide a 2nd opinion on the same. Thus the reportby Kahuthia Kibui & Company Valuers filed on 19/5/2015 recomends Standard Rent
4. By an application dated 27th May 2015, the applicant/tenant prayed for restraining orders barring the defendant from increasing rent and/or evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises pending interpartes hearing of the application.
5. The application was initially heard exparte and interim orders granted on 29th May 2015.
6. The respondent filed its replying affidavit and notice of Preliminary Objection on 12th June 2015 which were premised on two grounds i.e. that the tribunal lacked Jurisdiction to entertain the application under sec 2 of Cap 296 and Secondly that the applicant was not the legal tenant and therefore lacked locus standi to bring the application.
7. With respect to the 2nd later ground of objection it is instructive to note that Cap 296defines a tenant in broad terms to include a spouse or any other person succeeding the original tenant [if deceased].
8. On the issue of Jurisdiction, the defendant has sought to place reliance on JR No. 447/12. The tenant’s Counsel in opposition to the PO brought to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of another precedent by High Court being J.R No. 191 of 2013 which had arisen out of Rent Restriction Case No. 278/2013.
9. In the later decision, the High Court maintained that Standard Rent is a special term defined under Section 2 of the Act. For the tribunal to make a decision as to whether it had Jurisdiction, it has to make a determination of the Standard rent, without which it cannot be said with certainty that it lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The law is not that a Court or tribunal which has no Jurisdiction at all in the matter. However, once the Court or tribunal makes a determination that it has no Jurisdiction it must down its tools at once. In the light of the High Court decision above, it is the tribunals considered position that standard rent has to be determined first for it to decide whether it has Jurisdiction or not.
10. Accordingly the PO is dismissed and the Tribunal Valuer directed to assess Standard Rent within 30 days for further directions to be issued.
11. Ruling read in open court on 15th day of October, 2015 in absence of both parties.
ISSUED UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI ON THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015. SIGNEDHILLARY K. KORIRCHAIRMANRENT RESTRICTION TRIBUNALNAIROBI