[2024] KEBPRT 1476 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEBPRT 1476 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: Citadel Company Limited; Respondent: Joseph Munyira; Respondent: Ambrose Ndungi; Respondent: Wilson Marua; Respondent: Elizabeth Nduku; Respondent: Good Morning Baby Shop; Respondent: Tusker Dental; Respondent: Hotel Concecrew; Respondent: Jane Njeri; Respondent: Luseno Edward; Respondent: Antony Kebu Ndegwa; Respondent: Tom Michila; Respondent: Nancy Chepkorir
Court: Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Tribunal Case E582 of 2024
Procedural Posture: Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Landlord's Application for Leave to Levy Distress for Rent Arrears
Outcome: Application allowed to the extent that the landlord is permitted to levy distress for rent arrears. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges: P May
Legal Topics: Landlord Tenant Disputes, Distress for Rent, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language: en

Land and Property Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Disputes Distress for Rent Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Citadel Company Limited

Applicant

Joseph Munyira

Respondent

Ambrose Ndungi

Respondent

Wilson Marua

Respondent

Elizabeth Nduku

Respondent

Good Morning Baby Shop

Respondent

Tusker Dental

Respondent

Hotel Concecrew

Respondent

Jane Njeri

Respondent

Luseno Edward

Respondent

Antony Kebu Ndegwa

Respondent

Tom Michila

Respondent

Nancy Chepkorir

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Landlord's Application for Leave to Levy Distress for Rent Arrears

Legal Issues

1 Whether the landlord is entitled to leave to levy distress for rent arrears against the tenants.
2 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction where the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed.
3 Whether the tenants' conduct amounts to acquiescence to distress.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the landlord had established that the tenants were in arrears and had left their belongings on the premises without offering a payment plan or vacating in a manner that terminated the landlord-tenant relationship. The tribunal held that the mere assertion by some tenants that they were no longer in occupation did not oust its jurisdiction, especially where property remained and arrears were due. The tenants' failure to contest the landlord's right to levy distress or to address the issue of their belongings was construed as acquiescence. Accordingly, the tribunal granted the landlord leave to levy distress for the rent arrears.

Court Disposition

Application allowed to the extent that the landlord is permitted to levy distress for rent arrears. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

The landlord is granted leave to levy distress against the tenants for rent arrears.
Each party shall bear their own costs.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

45 paragraphs

Citadel Company Limited v Munyira & 11 others (Tribunal Case E582 of 2024) [2024] KEBPRT 1476 (KLR) (11 October 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEBPRT 1476 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E582 of 2024

P May, Member

October 11, 2024

Between

Citadel Company Limited

Landlord

and

Joseph Munyira

1st Tenant

Ambrose Ndungi

2nd Tenant

Wilson Marua

3rd Tenant

Elizabeth Nduku

4th Tenant

Good Morning Baby Shop

5th Tenant

Tusker Dental

6th Tenant

Hotel Concecrew

7th Tenant

Jane Njeri

8th Tenant

Luseno Edward

9th Tenant

Antony Kebu Ndegwa

10th Tenant

Tom Michila

11th Tenant

Nancy Chepkorir

12th Tenant

Ruling

1. The application before me is the landlord’s notice of motion dated 8th April, 2024 brought by way of certificate. The landlord sought for leave to levy distress against the tenants. The application was premised on the grounds that the tenants have been paying rent sporadically and had fallen into arrears. The landlord stated that they had issued the tenants reminders to rectify the default but the same had not borne fruit. The landlord had therefore been forced to issue eviction notices but the same had not elicited any responses. The landlord claimed that the tenants had instead opted to leave their property on the premises while at the same time failing to pay rent.

2. The landlord provided a schedule indicating the rent arrears due and maintained that the tenants had failed to provide any meaningful payment plan thus forcing the landlord to commence the present proceedings.

3. The application was placed before the Tribunal on 22nd May, 2024 whereby the Tribunal directed that the tenants be served with the application and set a date for inter partes hearing. The 3rd and 8th tenants only entered appearance and participated in the proceedings. The 3rd tenant sought to have their name expunged from the proceedings as they claimed that their no longer existed a landlord- tenant relationship. The 8th tenant stated that they were no longer in occupation of the demised premises.

4. The parties opted to canvass the application by way of written submissions. I have considered the application and the submissions on record and wish to proceed as follows:

5. The 8th tenant in their response challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the grounds that the same was frivolous since there no longer existed a landlord and tenant relationship. In order to buttress their position, the tenant had attached the order issued by Tribunal on 27th October,2023. I have perused the said order the same only granted for orders of break in to the demised premises. The 8th tenant was a party to the said proceedings in BPRT/E793/2023.

6. The tenant did not address themselves to the issue of them leaving their belongings at the demised premises while the said question formed the crux of the present dispute. In the circumstances it can be construed that they are not opposed to the levying of distress. The landlord sought for the order to levy distress so as to insulate themselves. The tribunal is therefore vested with the jurisdiction to make orders on the same.

7. In the circumstances, the landlord’s reference and application is allowed to the extent that they are allowed to levy distress.

8. Each party shall bear their own costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 11THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2024HON. PATRICIA MAYMEMBERBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of Ms. Wanjala for the 8th Tenant/RespondentIn the absence of the Applicant and 1st -7th Respondents and 9th to 12th Tenants

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.