[2021] KEBPRT 326 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 326 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was in writing, for a term of six years, and did not contain provisions for termination otherwise than for breach of covenant within five years from commencement. As such, the tenancy did not meet the statutory definition of a controlled tenancy under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 326 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: BCONCEPT LIMITED T/A B-CLUB; Respondent: GOLDROCK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; Respondent: DALALI TRADERS AUCTIONEERS; Respondent: VALLEY AUCTIONEERS
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 1142 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection allowed; application and reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction
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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCONCEPT LIMITED T/A B-CLUB

Applicant

GOLDROCK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Respondent

DALALI TRADERS AUCTIONEERS

Respondent

VALLEY AUCTIONEERS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy between the parties is a controlled tenancy under Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya.
  2. 2 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute based on the nature of the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was in writing, for a term of six years, and did not contain provisions for termination otherwise than for breach of covenant within five years from commencement. As such, the tenancy did not meet the statutory definition of a controlled tenancy under Cap 301. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. The preliminary objection by the Landlord was upheld, and the Tenant's application and reference were dismissed with costs to the Landlord.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection allowed; application and reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The Landlord's preliminary objection dated 18th March 2021 is allowed.
  • The Tenant's reference dated 15th November 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Landlord.