Maru v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3648 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court quashed a rent tribunal ruling that evicted a tenant without hearing him, confirming anyone affected by a decision must be heard first.
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 Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 is merited.
- 2.Whether the ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 19th December 2025 violated the Ex Parte Applicant's rights to fair hearing and fair administrative action.
- 3.Whether the Ex Parte Applicant has established a basis for the grant of the judicial review remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Validity of the preliminary objection
The preliminary objection failed because it raised contested factual issues rather than pure points of law.
The objection rested on the alleged illegality of the tenancy agreement, collusion between the Ex Parte Applicant and the Interested Party, and abuse of process. The court held these require examination of affidavit evidence and findings of fact, which fall outside the Mukisa Biscuit threshold. The question of standing was intertwined with the factual issue of the Applicant's occupation.
Whether the Tribunal's ruling violated the Applicant's rights to fair hearing and fair administrative action
Yes; the Tribunal condemned the Applicant unheard despite being aware of his occupation, breaching Articles 47, 50(1) and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
The Interested Party had placed before the Tribunal an affidavit of 2nd December 2025 disclosing the tenancy agreement, payment of rent and the Applicant's possession, with supporting documents. The Tribunal was therefore aware a third party's occupation would be directly affected. Procedural fairness required joining and hearing him before issuing orders restoring possession; failure to do so amounted to procedural impropriety under audi alteram partem.
Entitlement to judicial review remedies
Certiorari and Prohibition were warranted because the impugned ruling was reached through a procedurally flawed process.
Relying on Pastoli and Municipal Council of Mombasa, judicial review lies where there is illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, and is concerned with the decision-making process rather than merits. Having found the Applicant was condemned unheard, the court held Certiorari should issue to quash the ruling and Prohibition to restrain its implementation, which would otherwise perpetuate the violation.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot succeed where disputed facts must be ascertained.
- A decision-maker aware that a third party's occupation would be directly affected by its decision must afford that party an opportunity to be heard before issuing adverse orders.
- Certiorari issues to quash a decision made in violation of the rules of natural justice, and Prohibition issues to prevent implementation of an unlawful decision.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.An order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the ruling/order of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 19th December 2025 in BPRT/E1256/2025 – Pauline Mwikali Kieleko Vs Isabella Njeri Wachira.
- 3.An order of Prohibition be and is hereby issued prohibiting the implementation, enforcement or execution of the said ruling/order delivered on 19th December 2025 in BPRT/E1256/2025.
- 4.The Ex Parte Applicant shall have the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 5th January 2026.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23, 43 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 7, 9, 11 and 12 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act
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 Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 therefore fails to meet the threshold established in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696 and is hereby dismissed.
I therefore find that the process leading to the Tribunal's ruling of 19th December 2025 violated the Ex Parte Applicant's rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing and was consequently tainted by procedural impropriety.
An order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the ruling/order of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 19th December 2025 in BPRT/E1256/2025 – Pauline Mwikali Kieleko Vs Isabella Njeri Wachira.
An order of Prohibition be and is hereby issued prohibiting the implementation, enforcement or execution of the said ruling/order delivered on 19th December 2025 in BPRT/E1256/2025.
The Ex Parte Applicant shall have the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 5th January 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maru v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3648 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application pursuant to leave granted on 24th December 2025; Notice of Motion dated 5th January 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3648/eng@2026-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.