[2023] KEBPRT 1291 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as the respondent had never been in possession of the suit property nor paid rent to the landlord. Furthermore, the issues raised in the current reference were identical to those already determined in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEBPRT 1291 (KLR)
- Parties
- Tenant: Kabuku Investments Limited; Landlord: Kap Enterprises Limited
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 646 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Reference
- Outcome
- reference struck out with costs to landlord
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Relationship, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Striking Out Reference
- 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
Kabuku Investments Limited
Tenant
Kap Enterprises Limited
Landlord
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Reference
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties warranting the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the reference by the tenant should be struck out as it has been overtaken by events due to a previous ruling in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017.
- 3 Whether the issues raised in the current reference are res judicata owing to the determination in the earlier case.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as the respondent had never been in possession of the suit property nor paid rent to the landlord. Furthermore, the issues raised in the current reference were identical to those already determined in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017, where the Tribunal dismissed the tenant's reference for want of jurisdiction. As such, the current reference was deemed to have been overtaken by events and was therefore struck out with costs to the landlord.
Court Disposition
reference struck out with costs to landlord
Orders
- The landlord's application dated 13.2.2023 is allowed.
- The tenant's reference is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Kabuku Investments Limited v Kap Enterprises Limited (Tribunal Case 646 of 2017) [2023] KEBPRT 1291 (KLR) (3 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEBPRT 1291 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case 646 of 2017
CN Mugambi, Chair
August 3, 2023
Between
Kabuku Investments Limited
Tenant
and
Kap Enterprises Limited
Landlord
Ruling
1. The landlord’s notice of motion dated 13. 2.2023 seeks an order that the reference by the tenant in this matter dated 29. 8.2017 be struck out. The grounds upon which the application is brought are that there has never been a landlord tenant relationship between the parties herein, the Respondent has never been in possession of the suit property, never paid any rent to the landlord and further that the suit property has been in possession of lower Kirinyaga road traders since January 2017 and they have been the tenants on the suit premises since then.
2. The tenants in their replying affidavit have deponed that the instant reference has been overtaken by events by dint of the Tribunal’s determination in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017, between the same parties and wherein the Tribunal has already delivered a judgment. The tenant further depones in its affidavit that it has already filed an appeal in the said matter.
3. The tenant has further confirmed in its affidavit that the instant matter was initially filed as BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017 and that both cases raise similar issues and that further, the tenants have already lodged their appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017, the instant reference has been overtaken by events.
4. I have perused the proceedings and the ruling in BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017. It is true that both cases raise similar issues and are between the same parties. In BPRT Case No. 9 of 2017, the tenants reference and all applications in the matter were dismissed for want of jurisdiction with costs to the Respondent/Applicant herein.
5. In the circumstances, I allow the landlord’s application dated 13. 2.2023 and strike out the reference herein with costs to the Applicant/landlord.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSON8. 2023In the presence of;Ms. Wangari for the tenant/RespondentMr. Gode for the landlord/Applicant