Jobenpha Community School v Kimani
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a school's suit, ruling that controlled tenancy disputes belong exclusively to Kenya's Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine this dispute
- 2.Whether the instant Preliminary Objection dated 5th May 2026 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law
Yes - jurisdiction can be determined from the pleadings and prior proceedings without ascertaining facts
The court held that jurisdiction is a pure question of law determinable from the plaintiff's own pleadings and the documented history before the BPRT and ELC on appeal. The plaintiff's admission that occupation arose from a Lease Agreement, and the prior judicial finding that the tenancy was a controlled one, meant no evidentiary inquiry was needed.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over the dispute
No - the dispute arises from a landlord-tenant relationship over a controlled tenancy within the BPRT's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 12 of Cap 301
Section 2 of Cap 301 defines controlled tenancies; the BPRT's jurisdiction covers termination, eviction and possession. Judicial notice was taken that the BPRT had already dealt with the tenancy between the parties, and that a prior ELC appeal judgment recorded it was not disputed that the tenancy was a controlled one. The plaintiff's re-cast claim of trespass could not confer jurisdiction.
Whether the suit was an abuse of court process
Yes - the suit was filed to circumvent execution of a valid BPRT judgment
The BPRT had determined possession in the landlord's favour through a succession of rulings, culminating in the file being closed as res judicata and an abuse of process. The plaintiff, having lost there and on appeal, changed tact and claimed possessory rights in this Court to defeat the decree, which the court characterized as an abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be on a pure point of law and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained
- Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and a court cannot expand it through judicial craft or innovation
- A party cannot evade statutory dispute resolution mechanisms or resuscitate a determined dispute by clothing it in different apparel; substance prevails over form in jurisdictional questions
Court orders
#- 1.Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Stay of the BPRT judgment and decree in BPRT Case No. E1169 of 2025
Court found it lacks jurisdiction; dispute is a controlled tenancy matter within the BPRT's exclusive jurisdiction
Declaration that enforcement of the BPRT judgment is unlawful and declaration of lawful occupation
Suit was an abuse of process to circumvent a valid BPRT judgment
Costs
Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant
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.
It is well settled that a Preliminary Objection must be on a pure point of law and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained.
It is settled that jurisdiction is everything and without it, a Court /Tribunal is called to down its tools.
I find that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as the dispute herein arises from a landlord- tenant relationship which falls within the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
In the foregoing, I find the Notice of Preliminary Objection merited and will proceed to dismiss this suit with costs to the Defendant.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram name differs from signature block
Reproduced BPRT excerpt contains internal date inconsistencies
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jobenpha Community School v Kimani", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E149 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5487/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.