1. I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the Notice of Motion Application dated 28 March, 2025 together with the further grounds in the supporting affidavit sworn on even date. I note that grounds of opposition, were filed out of time, I have non the less considered the same.
2. I note from the outset that the Application seeks a stay of execution of a ruling emanating from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 19th February, 2025.
3. It is not lost on me that the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act express provides at section 15 of the Act that appeals from decisions of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal shall lie to the Environment and Land Court Act. Section 15 states as follows:
“
(1)
Any party to a reference aggrieved by any determination or order of a Tribunal made therein may, within thirty days after the date of such determination or order, appeal to the Environment and Land Court:
4. Based on plain reading of the above, it is evident that the said Act provides for a specific forum to which an appeal such as the present one may be preferred. Consequently, the Application seeking a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal ought to have also been filed in the same court as the substantive appeal. That court is the Environmental and Land Court, and not the High Court.
5. Finally, the Constitution of Kenya at Article 162 (b) mandated the parliament to establish courts with the status of the High court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and use and occupation of, and title to, land. The Environment and Land Court Act was enacted specifically to deal with disputes such as the present appeal. And this jurisdiction is elaborated further in section 13 of the said Act in addition to the express provision outlined above.
6. Guided by the above, I am satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the present Application because the same has been filed in the wrong court. It is trite that a court without jurisdiction must down its tools (see Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1) and the present matter is no exception. The Application and the Appeal are accordingly struck out.
7. The file is marked as closed.
2. I note from the outset that the Application seeks a stay of execution of a ruling emanating from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 19th February, 2025.
3. It is not lost on me that the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act express provides at section 15 of the Act that appeals from decisions of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal shall lie to the Environment and Land Court Act. Section 15 states as follows:
“
(1)
Any party to a reference aggrieved by any determination or order of a Tribunal made therein may, within thirty days after the date of such determination or order, appeal to the Environment and Land Court:
4. Based on plain reading of the above, it is evident that the said Act provides for a specific forum to which an appeal such as the present one may be preferred. Consequently, the Application seeking a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal ought to have also been filed in the same court as the substantive appeal. That court is the Environmental and Land Court, and not the High Court.
5. Finally, the Constitution of Kenya at Article 162 (b) mandated the parliament to establish courts with the status of the High court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and use and occupation of, and title to, land. The Environment and Land Court Act was enacted specifically to deal with disputes such as the present appeal. And this jurisdiction is elaborated further in section 13 of the said Act in addition to the express provision outlined above.
6. Guided by the above, I am satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the present Application because the same has been filed in the wrong court. It is trite that a court without jurisdiction must down its tools (see Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1) and the present matter is no exception. The Application and the Appeal are accordingly struck out.
7. The file is marked as closed.