[2025] KEBPRT 309 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the applicant and Agricultural Holdings Ltd was for a period of six years and did not contain a provision for termination within five years, as required for a controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301. The Tribunal held that the registration status of the lease...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 309 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Monks Medicare Africa; Respondent: Northwest Offshore Limited; Respondent: Dollar Auctions
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E082 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Lease Agreements, Registration of Leases
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Monks Medicare Africa
Applicant
Northwest Offshore Limited
Respondent
Dollar Auctions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute based on the nature and duration of the lease agreement.
- 2 Whether the tenancy in question qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the applicant and Agricultural Holdings Ltd was for a period of six years and did not contain a provision for termination within five years, as required for a controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301. The Tribunal held that the registration status of the lease and compliance with its terms were irrelevant to the determination of whether the tenancy was controlled. Since the tenancy did not meet the statutory definition of a controlled tenancy, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. Consequently, the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Africa v Northwest Offshore Limited & another (Tribunal Case E082 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 309 (KLR) (12 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 309 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E082 of 2025
CN Mugambi, Chair
June 12, 2025
Between
Monks Medicare Africa
Applicant
and
Northwest Offshore Limited
1st Respondent
Dollar Auctions
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Complaint in this matter is dated 17. 1.2025 and is to the effect that the Landlord has instructed Auctioneers to proclaim the Tenant’s goods without any justification. The Tenant also complains that the proclamation notice is based on inflated/exaggerated rent arrears. The Tenant therefore sought the Tribunal’s intervention in preventing the Respondents from continuing with their illegal actions.
2. The Tenant has also filed a motion dated 17. 1.2025 wherein it has sought restraining orders against the Respondents.
3. The 1st Respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine this matter and that being the case, I will have to determine the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter before proceeding further.
4. The lease agreement between the Tenant and Agricultural Holdings Ltd is the one dated 1. 03. 2023, it is apparent that the Respondents are the agent of the Landlord and the Auctioneers respectively and they are strictly speaking not the Landlords of the premises.The said lease agreement is for a period of six (6) years commencing “1st day of March Two Thousand and Two, i.e 1. 3.2002. I think this is a typographical error for the reason that an agreement for six years dated 1. 3.2023 cannot be said to have commenced twenty-one years in the past. I think the parties intended the date of 1. 3.2023 or 1. 3.2022. This position is further fortified by the Tenant’s statement of account that shows that the Tenant started paying rent on 29. 9.2022. Either way, the lease agreement is still live as the six years would have lapsed in the year 2028 or 2029 as the case may be.
5. The Tenant does not dispute that the said lease exists save where he states at paragraph 7 of his further affidavit as follows;-“That the claim of a six year fixed lease is not dispositive of the nature of the tenancy particularly where there has been no registration of the lease and where the parties have not acted strictly in accordance with the written lease.”
6. I do not think the registration of the lease and the compliance with the terms thereof are ingredients of a controlled tenancy. A controlled tenancy has been clearly defined/described at Section 2 of Cap 301 as a tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishmenta.Which has not been reduced into writing orb.Which has been reduced into writing and whichi.Is for a period not exceeding five years orii.Contains provision for termination otherwise than for breach of covenant within five years from the commitment thereof oriii.Relates to premises of a class specified under subsection (2) of this Section.
7. The lease agreement between the Tenant and Agricultural Holdings Ltd is one for a period of six (6) years and does not contain the provision for termination under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act, Cap 301. Clearly therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter and consequently, the same is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
8. The Tenant will bear the costs of the suit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of Mr. Nicholas/for the Tenant and in the absence of the landlord