[2022] KEBPRT 1084 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the tenant had sufficiently addressed the landlord's concerns by demonstrating that the costs of Kshs 15,000 had been paid to the landlord's counsel and that the tenant had paid the reference fees as generated by the court's CTS system. The Tribunal held that any shortfall in fees was a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEBPRT 1084 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Chege & Partners; Respondent: Peter Gichuki Mugo
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E328 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vary or Discharge Previous Tribunal Orders
- Outcome
- Landlord's application dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Business Premises Rent, Tribunal Orders, Costs Awards, Compliance With Orders
- 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
John Chege & Partners
Applicant
Peter Gichuki Mugo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vary or Discharge Previous Tribunal Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenant complied with the Tribunal's orders to pay reference fees and costs to the landlord.
- 2 Whether the landlord is entitled to variation or discharge of the Tribunal's orders due to alleged non-compliance by the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the tenant had sufficiently addressed the landlord's concerns by demonstrating that the costs of Kshs 15,000 had been paid to the landlord's counsel and that the tenant had paid the reference fees as generated by the court's CTS system. The Tribunal held that any shortfall in fees was a matter for the Tribunal to address with the tenant, not grounds for penalizing the tenant. The Tribunal concluded that the landlord's application to vary or discharge the orders was not merited, as the tenant had complied with the substantive requirements of the previous orders. The matter was ordered to proceed to hearing, with directions for both parties to file valuation reports...
Court Disposition
Landlord's application dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- The landlord's application dated 7.9.2022 is dismissed.
- The reference shall proceed for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Chege & Partners v Mugo (Tribunal Case E328 of 2021) [2022] KEBPRT 1084 (KLR) (9 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEBPRT 1084 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E328 of 2021
CN Mugambi, Chair
November 9, 2022
Between
John Chege & Partners
Landlord
and
Peter Gichuki Mugo
Tenant
Ruling
1. The landlord’s application dated 7. 9.2022 seeks orders that the orders issued by the Tribunal on 22. 6.2022 be varied or discharged and the landlord’s application dated 23. 2.2023 be allowed.
2. The application is based on the grounds that the Tribunal ordered the tenant to regularize the position by paying for the reference and cots of Kshs 15,000/= to the landlord within fourteen (14) days which the tenant failed to do. it is the landlord’s case that failure to comply with the Tribunal’s order amounted to disobeying the Tribunal and contempt of the orders issued.
3. The Respondent/Tenant has explained that the registry staff at the Tribunal requested for rent receipts to enable them assess the fees payable but the tenant did not have any as the landlord did not provide any. The Respondent’s counsel further followed on the issue of receipts vide a letter dated 19. 8.2022 addressed to the Tribunal. The letter did not elicit any response from court.
4. The Respondent/Tenant has also deponed in his affidavit that he filed an amended reference and paid the fees generated by the court’s CTS system.
5. On the issue of the payment of the costs amounting to Kshs 15,000/=, the Tenant has stated that the same was paid to Counsel for the landlord by the tenant’s Advocates, a fact not disputed by Counsel for the landlord.
6. I think the concerns raised by the landlord have been sufficiently answered by the tenant in his affidavit. The issue of costs has been settled by the aforesaid payment.
7. On the issue of regulating the payment of fees for the reference, I think it is a matter where the tenant cannot be blamed. The tenant has paid the amount generated by the court’s CTS system and any shortfalls should be a matter of the Tribunal to follow up and advise the tenant. Thought the patriotic zeal of the landlord is laudable, I do not think this is a proper case to grant the orders sought by the landlord.
8. In a bid to finalise this matter, I will order that the reference proceeds for hearing and both parties to file their valuation reports within the next thirty (30) days. The valuation reports to be filed together with the parties submissions.
9. This matter will be mentioned on 24. 1.2022.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBR 2022HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSON9. 11. 2022In the presence of;Mr. Kitanji for the landlordMr. Mugo for the tenant