[2025] KEBPRT 318 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 318 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the tenancy between the parties was a controlled tenancy as it was not reduced into writing and rent was paid monthly, thus falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The landlord's notice of termination was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements regarding form and notice period. The landlord's unilateral repossession and letting of the premises to a third party was unlawful and did not extinguish the tenant's statutory rights. The applicant was therefore entitled to reinstatement and quiet possession. However, due to the applicant's filing of parallel proceedings, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 318 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Karimi Maina; Respondent: Abdi Nure
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 July 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E240 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling
Outcome
Tenant's application and reference allowed; tenant to regain quiet possession; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Quiet Possession, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Termination of Tenancy Quiet Possession Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Karimi Maina

Applicant

Abdi Nure

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Reference / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy between the parties was a controlled tenancy within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the landlord's notice of termination was valid and compliant with statutory requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord unlawfully interfered with the tenant's quiet possession of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the tenancy between the parties was a controlled tenancy as it was not reduced into writing and rent was paid monthly, thus falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The landlord's notice of termination was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements regarding form and notice period. The landlord's unilateral repossession and letting of the premises to a third party was unlawful and did not extinguish the tenant's statutory rights. The applicant was therefore entitled to reinstatement and quiet possession. However, due to the applicant's filing of parallel proceedings, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Tenant's application and reference allowed; tenant to regain quiet possession; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The tenant's application and reference dated 24/10/2024 are allowed; the tenant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the premises.
  • The tenant is to settle all rents in arrears within 30 days of the date hereof; in default, the landlord is at liberty to levy distress in recovery thereof at the tenant's expense.