Systemedia Technologies Limited v Matheka & 3 others [2022] KEHC 16193 (KLR) | Jurisdiction Of Courts | Esheria

Systemedia Technologies Limited v Matheka & 3 others [2022] KEHC 16193 (KLR)

Full Case Text

Systemedia Technologies Limited v Matheka & 3 others (Civil Appeal 163 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 16193 (KLR) (Civ) (8 December 2022) (Directions)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16193 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Civil

Civil Appeal 163 of 2018

JN Mulwa, J

December 8, 2022

Between

Systemedia Technologies Limited

Appellant

and

Grace Matheka

1st Respondent

Upstate Auctioneers

2nd Respondent

Moran Auctioneers

3rd Respondent

Great Rift Valley Auctioneers

4th Respondent

(Being an Appeals from the Ruling and Order delivered in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani in CMCC No. 4210 of 2015 as consolidated with CMCC No. 4457 of 2017 delivered by Hon. I. Orenge (SRM) on 2nd March, 2018)

Directions

1. This appeal arises from a decision of the lower court dismissing the appellant’s application for a temporary injunction. The appellant herein was a tenant of the 1st respondent by virtue of a lease agreement dated November 2, 2009 in which the said respondent agreed to lease to it a property known as LR No 82/388 Sunrise Donholm Nairobi. The dispute in the lower court concerns allegations of breach of the said tenancy agreement wherein the appellant accuses the respondent of unlawfully and unilaterally increasing the rent payable for the said business premises.

2. In the application subject of the impugned ruling and order of March 2, 2018, the appellant sought a temporary injunction to retrain the respondents herein from levying distress, attaching, removing and/or selling of goods already proclaimed or any further proclamation and/or distraining of the appellant’s movable property lying in its business premises, pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed in the lower court. Upon sitting down to consider the appeal which was canvassed by way of written submissions, the court found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it concerns a landlord and tenant relationship.

3. Article 162 (2) as read with article 165 (5) (b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 reserves the jurisdiction to determine such disputes exclusively in the Environment and Land Court. The said section 13 provides that:-“(1)The court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of this Act or any other law applicable in Kenya relating to environment and land.(2)In exercise of its jurisdiction under article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution, the court shall have power to hear and determine disputes;a.Relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;b.Relating to compulsory acquisition of land;c.Relating to land administration and management;d.Relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and,e.Any other dispute relating to environment and land.(3)…(4)In addition to the matters referred to in subsections (1) and (2), the court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of subordinate courts or local tribunals in respect of matters falling within the jurisdiction of the court.”

4. In the premises, this court declines to take any action in respect of the appeal and down its tools in line with the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd[1989] eKLR where the court rendered that:“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.”

5. Consequently, this appeal is transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination.Orders accordingly.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022. J.N. MULWAJUDGE