[2021] KEBPRT 342 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 342 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the tenancy agreement between the parties was for a term of 5 years and 3 months. Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, excludes tenancies exceeding five years from the definition of controlled tenancies. As such, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 342 (KLR)
Parties
Tenant: Golden Cara Investment Limited; Landlord: Bell Estate Agency Limited
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 327 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; applications struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to landlord
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy Definition, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Tenancy Term Exemption
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Definition Jurisdiction of Tribunal Tenancy Term Exemption

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

Parties

Golden Cara Investment Limited

Tenant

Bell Estate Agency Limited

Landlord

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over a tenancy exceeding five years in term.
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy between the parties qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the tenancy agreement between the parties was for a term of 5 years and 3 months. Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, excludes tenancies exceeding five years from the definition of controlled tenancies. As such, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The preliminary objection raised by the Landlord was upheld, and both the Tenant's and Landlord's applications were struck out for want of jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to the Landlord.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; applications struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to landlord

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 8th June 2020 is upheld.
  • The Tenant's application dated 18th March 2020 is struck out for want of jurisdiction.