Republic v Chairperson, Rent Restriction Tribunal & 3 others; Great Mwanzo Properties & Management Valuers Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed Golden Valley's attempt to quash a Rent Restriction Tribunal order, ruling the company should have appealed instead of going to judicial review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned direction of 17th October 2024 was subject to quashing by certiorari and prohibition
The application was dismissed; the direction was an interlocutory enforcement step taken within the Tribunal's mandate and no natural justice breach was established
The court found the orders of 17th October 2024 were interlocutory, merely directing provision of CR12 documents to identify directors for possible enforcement if disobedience persisted. The Applicant had filed a defence and was represented before the Tribunal, so it was heard. The Tribunal acted to protect the tenant and enforce its earlier orders, which the Applicant and 2nd Interested Party had disobeyed. No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was demonstrated.
Whether the application offended the doctrine of exhaustion
Yes; the Applicant should have pursued the appeal under Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act rather than seek judicial review
Section 8(2) of the Rent Restriction Act guarantees a right of appeal to any aggrieved party, and Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act bars judicial review unless internal mechanisms and remedies under other written law are first exhausted. The Applicant opted for certiorari and prohibition instead of appealing to the Environment and Land Court, in breach of the exhaustion doctrine.
Whether judicial review lay to challenge the merits of the impugned order
No; judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
Relying on Municipal Council of Mombasa v Umoja Consultants and Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service, the court held that judicial review examines process (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety) rather than the correctness of the decision. The Applicant was in substance challenging the merits of the order, which does not fall within the ambit of judicial review.
Legal principles established
#- A party who participated in proceedings before a tribunal and was granted audience cannot claim violation of the rules of natural justice
- Where adequate internal review and appellate remedies exist under a statute, a party must exhaust them before seeking judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 11th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act (order of certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairperson, Rent Restriction Tribunal & 3 others; Great Mwanzo Properties & Management Valuers Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR E032 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1058/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.