[2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, as there was no agreement or payment of rent, and both parties concurred on this fact. Since the existence of such a relationship is a prerequisite for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the reference. Consequently, the Tribunal could not address any substantive issues raised and was compelled to strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ann Wambui Karanja; Respondent: Samuel Mwangi Karanja
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E027 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Jurisdiction
Outcome
struck_out_for_want_of_jurisdiction
Judges
P Kitur
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Landlord Tenant Relationship, Controlled Tenancy Definition, Eviction Procedure
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Tribunal Landlord Tenant Relationship Controlled Tenancy Definition Eviction Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Wambui Karanja

Applicant

Samuel Mwangi Karanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists between the Applicant and Respondent to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, as there was no agreement or payment of rent, and both parties concurred on this fact. Since the existence of such a relationship is a prerequisite for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the reference. Consequently, the Tribunal could not address any substantive issues raised and was compelled to strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

struck_out_for_want_of_jurisdiction

Orders

  • The matter herein is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of these proceedings.