[2024] KEBPRT 960 (KLR)
The tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter because the applicant had already vacated the premises, and the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist. The provisions of Cap 301 only apply where such a relationship subsists. The tribunal relied on established case law...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEBPRT 960 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Grocery Cart Mini Mart Limited; Respondent: 4Way Village Management Limited; Respondent: James Mathenge; Respondent: Paul Njingo Masai; Respondent: Maureen Mutune
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E444 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Merits
- Outcome
- Reference and application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Landlord Tenant Relationship, Controlled Tenancy, Refund of Rent Deposit, Compensation for Improvements
- 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
Grocery Cart Mini Mart Limited
Applicant
4Way Village Management Limited
Respondent
James Mathenge
Respondent
Paul Njingo Masai
Respondent
Maureen Mutune
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Merits
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Business Premises Rent Tribunal have jurisdiction where the landlord-tenant relationship has ended?
- 2 Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent deposit and compensation for improvements after vacating the premises?
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter because the applicant had already vacated the premises, and the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist. The provisions of Cap 301 only apply where such a relationship subsists. The tribunal relied on established case law confirming that its jurisdiction is contingent on the existence of a controlled tenancy. Since the applicant's claims for refund of deposit and compensation for improvements arose after the termination of the tenancy, the proper forum for redress is a civil court with competent jurisdiction, not the tribunal. Consequently, the reference and application were dismissed for want of...
Court Disposition
Reference and application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The tenant's reference/complaint and application are dismissed.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Grocery Cart Mini Mart Limited v 4Way Village Management Limited & 3 others (Tribunal Case E444 of 2024) [2024] KEBPRT 960 (KLR) (28 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEBPRT 960 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E444 of 2024
CN Mugambi, Chair
June 28, 2024
Between
Grocery Cart Mini Mart Limited
Tenant
and
4Way Village Management Limited
1st Respondent
James Mathenge
2nd Respondent
Paul Njingo Masai
3rd Respondent
Maureen Mutune
4th Respondent
Ruling
1. The Reference/Complaint by the Tenant dated 08. 04. 2024 was to the effect that the Respondents had refused to refund the rent deposit of Kshs. 150,000/= for one (1) month contrary to Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. The Application by the Tenant dated 08. 04. 2024 introduced a further angle that the Tenant had improved the suit premises at a cost of Kshs. 280,000/=.
3. At the very outset, I need to determine whether in the circumstances obtaining in this Application and Reference, the Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
4. The Tenant in its affidavit sworn on 08. 04. 2024 depones that it issued a notice to terminate its tenancy and proceeded to vacate the suit premises on or before 02. 02. 2024.
5. On 02. 05. 2024, Counsel for the Landlord informed the court that the Tenant vacated the suit premises on 16. 04. 2024 while the Tenant told the court that she vacated on 01. 02. 2024.
6. On 19. 06. 2024, the Tenant informed the court that the only claim was in regard to the rent deposit of Kshs. 150,000/= and compensation for fit outs renovated at Kshs. 280,000/=.
7. It is common ground that the Applicant is no longer in the suit premises and whether the Tenant vacated the suit premises on 16. 04. 2024 or 01. 02. 2024 is really immaterial. In this instance, there does not exist the relationship of a Landlord and Tenant and in the circumstances, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. The Tenant can only take up its claim with a civil court with the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine its case.
8. In the case of; Pritam v Ratilal & Another [1972] EA, the court stated;“Therefore the existence of the relationship of Landlord and Tenant is a pre-requisite to the Application of the provisions of the Act. Where such a relationship does not exist or it has come to or been brought to an end, the provisions of the Act will not apply. The applicability of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, otherwise the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction.There must be a controlled tenancy as defined in Section 2 to which the provisions of the Act can be made to apply. Outside it, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.”
9. Further, in Judicial Review Case No. 25 of 2012 at Mombasa, Republic v The Chairman Business Premises Rent Tribunal & Italian Gelatic (K) Ltd, the court held;“The tenancy had been terminated and there was no tenancy capable of being preserved by the Tribunal.There was no longer a Landlord/Tenant relationship and so the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction. The proper forum for the 1st Respondent’s grievances was a civil court. That is where it should have sought intervention. The order made by the Tribunal is therefore amenable to an order of certiorari and any further proceedings pending before it can be stopped by a prohibitory order.”
10. In the circumstances, I do not find any merits in the Tenant’s Reference/Complaint and Application and the same are hereby dismissed.
11. Each party will bear their own costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of;Ms. Mutheu for the ApplicantMr. Owino for Ouma for the Respondent