[2020] KEBPRT 53 (KLR)

[2020] KEBPRT 53 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute because the lease agreement between the parties was for a fixed term of six years and did not contain a termination clause for reasons other than breach. As such, the tenancy did not meet the statutory definition of a controlled tenancy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEBPRT 53 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Airworks Kenya Limited; Respondent: Kenya Aerospace Limited
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 84 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Jurisdiction
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; tribunal lacks jurisdiction; tenant's application struck out
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Lease Agreements, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Lease Agreements Preliminary Objection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airworks Kenya Limited

Applicant

Kenya Aerospace Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement created a controlled tenancy within the meaning of section 2 of Cap 301.
  3. 3 Whether the orders previously issued by the Tribunal were obtained by concealment of material facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute because the lease agreement between the parties was for a fixed term of six years and did not contain a termination clause for reasons other than breach. As such, the tenancy did not meet the statutory definition of a controlled tenancy under section 2 of Cap 301. The Tribunal further held that the Tenant had obtained interim orders by failing to disclose the existence of the lease agreement, amounting to concealment of material facts. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Landlord's application, set aside the interim orders, and struck out the Tenant's application and reference for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; tribunal lacks jurisdiction; tenant's application struck out

Orders

  • The Landlord's application dated 4th February 2020 is allowed.
  • The orders issued by the Tribunal on 23rd January 2020 are set aside.