[2019] KEBPRT 2 (KLR)

[2019] KEBPRT 2 (KLR)

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications for contempt of court following the High Court's declaration that the Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 is unconstitutional. As a statutory body created under Cap 301, the Tribunal's powers are limited to those expressly provided by statute, and there is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEBPRT 2 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Kaberia Kaumbuthu; Respondent: Teresia N. Gathuita; Respondent: Judy W. Gathuita; Respondent: Jane W. Gathuita
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 356 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction of Tribunals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Jurisdiction of Tribunals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kaberia Kaumbuthu

Applicant

Teresia N. Gathuita

Respondent

Judy W. Gathuita

Respondent

Jane W. Gathuita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court.
  2. 2 Whether the application for committal to civil jail for contempt is competent before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications for contempt of court following the High Court's declaration that the Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 is unconstitutional. As a statutory body created under Cap 301, the Tribunal's powers are limited to those expressly provided by statute, and there is no current statutory basis for the Tribunal to punish for contempt. Therefore, the preliminary objection is upheld and the application for committal to civil jail is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The respondent's preliminary objection dated 19th March 2018 is upheld.
  • The applicant's application dated 18th October 2017 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.