[2021] KEBPRT 223 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 223 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application because the landlord-tenant relationship had ended upon lawful repossession of the premises pursuant to valid tribunal orders issued on 11th June 2020. The removal of the tenant and his goods was executed in accordance with those...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 223 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Lawrence Ngige Mwiruri; Applicant: Peter Kilonzo
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 593 & 812 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Landlord Tenant Disputes, Eviction Orders, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Rent Arrears, Repossession of Premises
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Disputes Eviction Orders Jurisdiction of Tribunal Rent Arrears Repossession of Premises

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Ngige Mwiruri

Respondent

Peter Kilonzo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application after repossession of the premises by the landlord pursuant to a prior order.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the tenant and his goods from the premises was lawful.
  3. 3 Who is liable to pay the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application because the landlord-tenant relationship had ended upon lawful repossession of the premises pursuant to valid tribunal orders issued on 11th June 2020. The removal of the tenant and his goods was executed in accordance with those orders, and the tenant had not sought to set aside or vary them. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is contingent on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, which had ceased. Any further disputes regarding rent arrears, storage, security costs, or release of goods must be pursued in an ordinary suit before the subordinate court. The application was therefore...

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd September 2020 is dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction.
  • The parties are at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the subordinate court regarding alleged rent arrears, storage and security costs, and release of goods held by the respondent pursuant to orders of 11th June 2020 in BPRT No. 593 of 2020.