[2013] KEHC 6069 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6069 (KLR)

The High Court held that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act to entertain complaints relating to controlled tenancies, including those arising from allegedly invalid notices. The Tribunal was empowered to issue orders preserving the status quo pending determination of such complaints, even if the orders were injunctive in form, as their substance was to maintain the relationship between the parties until the dispute was resolved. The question of whether Sururu was a tenant or licensee, and whether the premises constituted a shop, were factual matters to be determined by the...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6069 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Saifudeen Abdullabhai, Hussein Abdullabhai, Hassan Abdullabhai, Fakhruddin Abdullabhai, Mustafa Abdullabhai; Respondent: Business Premises Rent Tribunal; Interested Party: Ahmed Sururu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Cause 11 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Protected Tenancy, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Tribunal Jurisdiction Protected Tenancy Status Quo 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saifudeen Abdullabhai, Hussein Abdullabhai, Hassan Abdullabhai, Fakhruddin Abdullabhai, Mustafa Abdullabhai

Applicant

Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Respondent

Ahmed Sururu

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Business Premises Rent Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear and determine a complaint in respect to a notice said to be invalid?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal have jurisdiction to make the orders in the nature of those sought to be impugned (injunctive/preservatory)?
  3. 3 How is the Tribunal to determine whether the dispute relates to a tenancy or a licence?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act to entertain complaints relating to controlled tenancies, including those arising from allegedly invalid notices. The Tribunal was empowered to issue orders preserving the status quo pending determination of such complaints, even if the orders were injunctive in form, as their substance was to maintain the relationship between the parties until the dispute was resolved. The question of whether Sururu was a tenant or licensee, and whether the premises constituted a shop, were factual matters to be determined by the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2012 is dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested party.