[2025] KEBPRT 335 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 335 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the central issue was whether it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. Jurisdiction depends on whether the tenancy is a controlled tenancy under Cap 301, which requires the premises to be a shop, hotel, or catering establishment and the tenancy to be unwritten or for a period not exceeding five years. The applicant claimed the premises were used for business, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents claimed they were residential. No conclusive evidence was adduced regarding the user of the premises. The tribunal held that, in the absence of such evidence and in line with the burden of proof under the Evidence Act, it could not determine its jurisdiction at...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 335 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Abdalla Abdi Ali; Respondent: Joseph Mbacia; Respondent: Denis Mbichi Mboroki; Respondent: Nancy Wambui Kangethe
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E099 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interim Orders
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; interim orders extended; inspection ordered; matter to proceed to substantive hearing.
Judges
A Muma
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Termination of Tenancy, Business Premises, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Termination of Tenancy Business Premises Preliminary Objection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdalla Abdi Ali

Applicant

Joseph Mbacia

Respondent

Denis Mbichi Mboroki

Respondent

Nancy Wambui Kangethe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute under the Landlords and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy in question qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Cap 301.
  3. 3 Whether the premises are business premises within the meaning of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the central issue was whether it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. Jurisdiction depends on whether the tenancy is a controlled tenancy under Cap 301, which requires the premises to be a shop, hotel, or catering establishment and the tenancy to be unwritten or for a period not exceeding five years. The applicant claimed the premises were used for business, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents claimed they were residential. No conclusive evidence was adduced regarding the user of the premises. The tribunal held that, in the absence of such evidence and in line with the burden of proof under the Evidence Act, it could not determine its jurisdiction at...

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed; interim orders extended; inspection ordered; matter to proceed to substantive hearing.

Orders

  • Inspection to be carried out on the premises on a date to be agreed upon at the registry and an inspection report filed.
  • Parties to have 14 days each to file documents for the substantive hearing of the reference together with the preliminary objection; landlord to commence.