Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court granted judicial review orders (Certiorari and Prohibition) after determining that the Rent Restriction Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a case involving a rent of Ksh 50,000, which surpasses the statutory limit of Ksh 2,500 under the Rent Restriction Act. The applicant (Republic) argued the tribunal acted ultra vires and in violation of natural justice, while the respondent claimed the application was premature. The court ruled the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, rendering its decision illegal.
Issues
- The court examined whether the Rent Restriction Tribunal acted ultra vires by entertaining a case involving a rent of Ksh 50,000, which exceeds the Ksh 2,500 monthly limit specified in Section 2 of the Rent Restriction Act. The applicant argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, while the respondent claimed the application was premature.
- The court assessed claims that the tribunal violated principles of natural justice by denying the applicant a hearing. The applicant argued this constituted procedural impropriety, while the respondent denied the allegations.
- The court addressed whether the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies under Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act before seeking judicial review. The applicant countered that jurisdictional issues justified immediate review.
Holdings
- An order of Prohibition was issued to prohibit the Respondent from proceeding in any manner whatsoever with Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No. E107 of 2021, as the tribunal's actions were deemed ultra vires and illegal.
- The court awarded costs to the Applicant, concluding that the tribunal's jurisdiction was not established and the judicial review application was meritorious.
- The court issued an order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and squash the Orders of the Deputy Chairman of the Rent Restriction Tribunal issued on June 18, 2021 in the Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No. E107 of 2021, as the tribunal acted without jurisdiction due to the rent exceeding its pecuniary limit.
Remedies
- An order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and squash the Orders of the Deputy Chairman of the Rent Restriction Tribunal issued on June 18, 2021 in the Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No. E107 of 2021
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant
- An order of Prohibition to prohibit the Respondent from proceeding in any manner whatsoever with Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No. E107 of 2021
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of judicial review, emphasizing that the Rent Restriction Tribunal acted ultra vires by entertaining a case where the rent exceeded its jurisdictional limit (Ksh 2,500). This was based on the tribunal's lack of statutory authority to handle such matters, constituting illegality under judicial review standards. The decision also addressed the exhaustion of remedies doctrine but found it inapplicable where jurisdiction was absent.
Precedent Name
- Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd
- Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others
Cited Statute
- Rent Restriction Act
- Fair Administrative Action Act
Judge Name
A.K. Ndung'u
Passage Text
- The rent payable in our case was agreed at a figure way above the Ksh 2,500 envisioned under the Act. The matter was thus beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal's jurisdiction is granted by statute and it would not confer upon itself jurisdiction other than as provided in the relevant Act. By entertaining the matter, the tribunal acted without jurisdiction, thus ultra vires and the decision reached is tainted with illegality.
- Where the question of jurisdiction is raised, nothing in my view, stops a party approaching this court under judicial review even before a tribunal pronounces itself on the matter before it. In our case, even before the impugned orders were issued.
- In order to succeed in an application for judicial review... the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety... Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law... Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires... Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness... Procedural Impropriety is when there is a failure to act fairly...