[2025] KEBPRT 265 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 265 (KLR)

The tribunal found that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties, supported by rent payment receipts, and that the absence of a written agreement does not negate the existence of a controlled tenancy under Cap 301. The tribunal held it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The landlord failed to provide evidence of a valid notice of termination or grounds to vacate the ex parte orders. The tribunal emphasized that eviction cannot be granted without compliance with statutory notice requirements. As neither party provided valuation reports, the tribunal could not determine the appropriate rent and directed both parties to file valuation reports. The landlord's application for...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 265 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Horientetertainment Limited; Respondent: Harrison Maina
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1278 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Tenant's application upheld; landlord's application dismissed; interim protection of tenant's possession; directions for valuation reports and future hearing.
Judges
A Muma
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Eviction Orders, Rent Assessment, Ex Parte Orders
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Eviction Orders Rent Assessment Ex Parte Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horientetertainment Limited

Applicant

Harrison Maina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute under Cap 301.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte orders issued on 21st November 2024 should be vacated.
  3. 3 What is the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the suit premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties, supported by rent payment receipts, and that the absence of a written agreement does not negate the existence of a controlled tenancy under Cap 301. The tribunal held it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The landlord failed to provide evidence of a valid notice of termination or grounds to vacate the ex parte orders. The tribunal emphasized that eviction cannot be granted without compliance with statutory notice requirements. As neither party provided valuation reports, the tribunal could not determine the appropriate rent and directed both parties to file valuation reports. The landlord's application for...

Court Disposition

Tenant's application upheld; landlord's application dismissed; interim protection of tenant's possession; directions for valuation reports and future hearing.

Orders

  • The landlord's application dated 9th January 2025 is dismissed.
  • The landlord is restrained from evicting or interfering with the tenant's quiet possession of the premises.