[2023] KERRT 1180 (KLR)

[2023] KERRT 1180 (KLR)

The tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit on two independent grounds. First, the tenancy agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, and the defendant invoked this clause at the earliest opportunity, satisfying the requirements of Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act. The tribunal was therefore obliged to stay the proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration, as the parties had freely chosen this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Second, the tribunal held that, pursuant to Section 2(1)(c) of the Rent Restriction Act (Cap 296), it had no jurisdiction over the suit premises because the agreed monthly rent of Kshs. 35,000...

Citation
[2023] KERRT 1180 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Okonji Wanjira; Defendant: Grache Leasing Ltd
Court
Rent Restriction Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 December 2023
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1200 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; proceedings stayed; tribunal found to lack jurisdiction
Judges
HK KORIR
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clauses in Tenancy Agreements, Jurisdiction of Rent Restriction Tribunal, Stay of Proceedings, Standard Rent Threshold, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Arbitration Clauses in Tenancy Agreements Jurisdiction of Rent Restriction Tribunal Stay of Proceedings Standard Rent Threshold Alternative Dispute Resolution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Okonji Wanjira

Plaintiff

Grache Leasing Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be stayed and the matter referred to arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to handle the suit pursuant to Section 2(c) of Cap 296.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit on two independent grounds. First, the tenancy agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, and the defendant invoked this clause at the earliest opportunity, satisfying the requirements of Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act. The tribunal was therefore obliged to stay the proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration, as the parties had freely chosen this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Second, the tribunal held that, pursuant to Section 2(1)(c) of the Rent Restriction Act (Cap 296), it had no jurisdiction over the suit premises because the agreed monthly rent of Kshs. 35,000...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; proceedings stayed; tribunal found to lack jurisdiction

Orders

  • The proceedings are stayed pending referral of the dispute to arbitration and hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings.
  • The tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the matter by dint of Cap 296.