Kanga v Kingpin Auctioneers & another (Civil Appeal E006 of 2021) [2026] KECA 267 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that rent disputes between landlords and tenants belong before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, not the Environment and Land Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in upholding the preliminary objection by finding that a landlord and tenant relationship existed between the appellant and the 1st respondent
- 2.Whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC had jurisdiction over a dispute characterised as one of landlord and tenant under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap. 301
The Court agreed with the ELC that the dispute was a landlord-tenant dispute over rent, governed by Cap. 301, and the ELC therefore lacked jurisdiction.
The Business Premises Rent Tribunal had already found a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by operation of law under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act 2012, and there was no appeal against that finding. The appellant's own pleadings in Wanguru Civil Suit No. 69 of 2013 showed he occupied the premises as a tenant. He could therefore claim nothing beyond tenancy under the Act, and the rent dispute fell outside the ELC's jurisdiction.
The primacy of jurisdiction as a threshold question
Jurisdiction is always the primary issue a court must determine before addressing the merits; it is a creature of the Constitution and statute, and a court exercising a jurisdiction it does not have renders its decisions null and void.
The Court reiterated the settled centrality of jurisdiction, citing Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v S. M. Thiga and Republic v Karisa Chungo as authorities underscoring the point. Because the ELC lacked jurisdiction over the tenancy dispute, the preliminary objection was properly upheld and the appeal against that ruling had no merit.
Whether the Tribunal's finding of tenancy bound the parties
The finding of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, unappealed, bound the appellant and the 1st respondent.
The Tribunal in Business Premises Rent Tribunal No. 125 of 2015 at Embu had found a landlord and tenant relationship by operation of law under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act 2012. No appeal was lodged against that finding, and the Court agreed with the learned Judge that it bound both the appellant and the 1st respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction must be determined before a court considers the merits of any dispute; jurisdiction is a creature of the Constitution and statute.
- Decisions rendered by a court without jurisdiction are null and void.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Article 164(3) of the Constitution (appeal from the Environment and Land Court); provision not expressly cited in the judgment.
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against the ELC ruling on jurisdiction
No merit; the dispute was a landlord-tenant matter governed by the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap. 301, so the ELC lacked jurisdiction
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the jurisdiction of the court is always the primary issue that the court has to determine before it can wade into settling the merits of the dispute between the parties before it
Where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have, its decisions are null and void.
There was no appeal on the finding, and we agree with the learned Judge that this finding bound the appellant and the 1st respondent.
We find no merit in the appeal which we dismiss with costs to the 1st respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the appeal was from a ruling of the ELC at Kerugoya dated 13th December 2019, but the record also shows the Business Premises Rent Tribunal matter concerned LR No. Wanguru/Township/159 while the ELC suit and the 1st respondent's title concern LR No. Wanguru/Township/160; the Court resolves this by noting the county records show the two parcels were one and the same land.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kanga v Kingpin Auctioneers & another (Civil Appeal E006 of 2021) [2026] KECA 267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/267/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.