An order concerning business premises needs to be understood in light of the relationship that gave the tribunal authority to act. Executing an order does not make a jurisdiction problem disappear.
In Muraga v Karanja [2026] KEELC 3960 (KLR), the court found no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and set aside tribunal orders. It nevertheless directed restoration and compensation for the consequences of their execution.
The Environment and Land Court at Nairobi delivered the judgment on 25 June 2026, in Environment and Land Appeal E086 of 2025.
The proceedings concerned a commercial stall
The original tribunal application sought removal of the respondent from Stall B-2 in Kiria-ini Building, Kamukunji. Orders were obtained and executed.
The respondent later challenged those proceedings, denied that a tenancy relationship existed between the parties and sought relief for the seizure and removal of goods.
The appellant also accepted that there was no tenancy relationship, while arguing that the tribunal could not grant the corrective relief the respondent requested.
The judgment's paragraphs 1-8 set out that procedural history. The source contains inconsistent dates for some earlier events, so this account does not reconstruct a precise timetable from those passages.
Jurisdiction depended on the actual relationship
Paragraphs 15-23 examined the statutory jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
The court found that the necessary tenancy relationship between these parties was absent. It held the relevant tribunal orders null and void and marked the pending tribunal proceedings closed for want of jurisdiction.
The existence of commercial premises was not, on its own, a sufficient answer to that jurisdiction question. A dispute over a stall and a dispute between landlord and tenant are not necessarily the same legal relationship.
For a business acquiring or occupying premises, this underlines the importance of identifying the person entitled to grant occupation and the documents establishing each party's role.
The court did not leave the executed eviction unaddressed
In paragraphs 24-27, the appellate court considered its own power to respond to what had happened.
It criticised the appellant's attempt to rely on the tribunal process to obtain and execute orders, then invoke lack of jurisdiction against the resulting corrective relief.
The court exercised its own inherent power to restore the position. This should not be described as conferring substantive jurisdiction on the tribunal after the event.
It was also not a general finding that every procedural defect permits a court to invent any remedy. The judgment addresses this particular history of proceedings and execution.
Restoration and valuation were separate orders
Paragraph 28 set aside the identified tribunal orders and consequential orders, and closed the tribunal proceedings.
It required the appellant to return the goods, stock and records and restore the rental unit to its condition before execution. The officer commanding Kamukunji Police Station was directed to ensure compliance.
The appellant was ordered to compensate the respondent for damage and loss, subject to assessment by a registered valuer within 30 days from the judgment. The parties were to appoint the valuer jointly, with the fallback appointment mechanism specified in the order if they could not agree.
The appellant was to bear costs in both the appeal and tribunal.
The court did not fix a monetary award at the amount claimed by the respondent. An order for assessment is not evidence that valuation, payment or restoration subsequently occurred.
Before relying on possession or enforcement documents
Identify the relationship between the actual parties. A person managing, sharing or disputing premises is not necessarily the landlord entitled to invoke a particular tribunal process.
Obtain advice on jurisdiction and the operative order before acting. A document authorising a step should not be treated as permanent protection against scrutiny of how it was obtained or used.
If an order has already been executed, preserve lawful records of the premises and affected property. The existence of a corrective judgment may leave valuation and implementation questions outstanding.
How ArdhiScore can support the evidence record
ArdhiScore can help organise available parcel or premises references, dated evidence, source citations and unresolved questions. Matching a commercial unit to a wider parcel still requires supporting documents; the court station alone cannot establish that connection.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Screening does not determine jurisdiction, authorise eviction or guarantee recovery of losses. The primary judgment and scoped later-history searches were read on 11 September 2026; no subsequent valuation, payment or changing order was verified.