[2025] KEBPRT 258 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 258 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the applicant was not in possession of the suit premises at the time of instituting the proceedings, as admitted in his own pleadings and correspondence. Consequently, there was no subsisting landlord/tenant relationship between the applicant and the landlord. The existence of such a relationship is a condition precedent for the tribunal's jurisdiction under the Landlords and Tenants Act. In the absence of this relationship, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. The tribunal relied on established case law, including Pritam v Ratilal and the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S', to emphasize that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 258 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Abdulahi Hared; Respondent: Mohamed Hanif Imadin; Respondent: Abdiaziz Mohamed Ali; Respondent: Abubakar Sheikh
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1309 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Application for Reinstatement
Outcome
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Judges
Gakuhi Chege, J Osodo
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Eviction Procedure, Landlord Tenant Relationship
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Eviction Procedure Landlord Tenant Relationship

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Abdulahi Hared

Applicant

Mohamed Hanif Imadin

Respondent

Abdiaziz Mohamed Ali

Respondent

Abubakar Sheikh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Application for Reinstatement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction where the applicant is no longer in possession of the suit premises.
  2. 2 Whether a landlord/tenant relationship existed at the time of filing the application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement to the premises without an eviction notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the applicant was not in possession of the suit premises at the time of instituting the proceedings, as admitted in his own pleadings and correspondence. Consequently, there was no subsisting landlord/tenant relationship between the applicant and the landlord. The existence of such a relationship is a condition precedent for the tribunal's jurisdiction under the Landlords and Tenants Act. In the absence of this relationship, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. The tribunal relied on established case law, including Pritam v Ratilal and the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S', to emphasize that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be...

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The applicant's reference and application dated November 26, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The applicant is at liberty to seek redress in the appropriate forum.