[2021] KEBPRT 409 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 409 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of 5 years 3 months and contained no termination clause during its currency. According to Section 2 of Cap. 301, such a lease does not constitute a controlled tenancy. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to controlled tenancies as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 409 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Greatfold Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Pindo Investments Limited; Respondent: GA Consultants Limited
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 177 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Injunction
Outcome
proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction; ex-parte orders set aside; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Injunctive Relief, Distress for Rent
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Injunctive Relief Distress for Rent

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greatfold Enterprises Limited

Applicant

Pindo Investments Limited

Respondent

GA Consultants Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over a lease exceeding 5 years 3 months without a termination clause.
  2. 2 Whether the ex-parte injunctive orders were obtained through falsehoods or concealment of material facts.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of 5 years 3 months and contained no termination clause during its currency. According to Section 2 of Cap. 301, such a lease does not constitute a controlled tenancy. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to controlled tenancies as defined by statute. As a result, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Consequently, the proceedings were struck out and the ex-parte orders previously granted to the Tenant were set aside. Costs were awarded to the Respondents.

Court Disposition

proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction; ex-parte orders set aside; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • The instant proceedings are struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • The ex-parte orders granted to the Tenant on 24th February 2021 are set aside.