[2025] KEBPRT 315 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 315 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the landlord failed to provide any evidence, such as a written lease agreement, to support the claim that the tenancy was for a period exceeding five years. In the absence of such evidence, and based on the tenant's uncontroverted assertion that the agreement was not in writing, the tribunal held that the tenancy falls within the definition of a controlled tenancy under Section 2(1)(a) of Cap. 301. The preliminary objection, lacking both factual and legal foundation, did not meet the threshold established in Mukisa Biscuits for a valid preliminary objection. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection as an abuse of process and affirmed its...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 315 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Gitonga; Respondent: Teresia Wanjiku Njoroge
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E146 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the respondent; tribunal affirms jurisdiction
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Preliminary Objection, Lease Agreements
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Preliminary Objection Lease Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Gitonga

Applicant

Teresia Wanjiku Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction where the tenancy agreement is alleged to be for a term exceeding five years.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a written tenancy agreement brings the tenancy under the definition of controlled tenancy under Section 2(1) of Cap. 301.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the landlord meets the legal threshold for a preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the landlord failed to provide any evidence, such as a written lease agreement, to support the claim that the tenancy was for a period exceeding five years. In the absence of such evidence, and based on the tenant's uncontroverted assertion that the agreement was not in writing, the tribunal held that the tenancy falls within the definition of a controlled tenancy under Section 2(1)(a) of Cap. 301. The preliminary objection, lacking both factual and legal foundation, did not meet the threshold established in Mukisa Biscuits for a valid preliminary objection. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection as an abuse of process and affirmed its...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the respondent; tribunal affirms jurisdiction

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 28/5/2025 is dismissed.
  • The Landlord/Applicant shall pay costs assessed at Kshs. 15,000 to be offset from the rent payable.