[2025] KEBPRT 222 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 222 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of six years, was reduced into writing, and contained no termination clause other than for breach of covenant. According to Section 2(1) of Cap 301, such a tenancy does not qualify as a controlled tenancy. The Tribunal therefore lacks...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 222 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Manase Kiptoo; Respondent: North Eastern Investment Limited; Respondent: NW Realite
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1424 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; application and reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Judges
J Osodo, Gakuhi Chege
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy Definition, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Lease Agreements, Preliminary Objection, Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Definition Jurisdiction of Tribunal Lease Agreements Preliminary Objection Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manase Kiptoo

Applicant

North Eastern Investment Limited

Respondent

NW Realite

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over a tenancy exceeding five years with no termination clause.
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy in question qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Cap 301.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection is merited and should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of six years, was reduced into writing, and contained no termination clause other than for breach of covenant. According to Section 2(1) of Cap 301, such a tenancy does not qualify as a controlled tenancy. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from such an agreement. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the application and reference were dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; application and reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th January 2025 is upheld.
  • The application and reference dated 31st December 2024 are dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction.