[2025] KEBPRT 321 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 321 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the landlord had not provided a credible or sufficient explanation for his failure to comply with the court's directions issued on 23/12/2024 or for his absence during the scheduled proceedings. The assertion that he was unable to access the virtual court was not substantiated, and the delay in filing the present application was not justified. However, in the interest of substantial justice as mandated by Article 159 of the Constitution, and exercising its discretion under Section 12(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotel and Catering Establishments) Act, the Tribunal allowed the landlord's application to file a response within 14 days. The Tribunal also...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 321 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Caroline Mathiu; Respondent: James Ng’ang’a
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1181 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Respond
Outcome
Application allowed with conditions; landlord granted leave to respond; costs awarded to tenant.
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Landlord Tenant Disputes, Business Premises Rent, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Land and Property Landlord Tenant Disputes Business Premises Rent Procedural Fairness

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Mathiu

Applicant

James Ng’ang’a

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Respond

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord should be granted leave to file a response to the tenant's application dated 30/10/2024 despite previous non-compliance with court directions.
  2. 2 Whether the landlord provided sufficient justification for failure to comply with court orders and attend proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to vary or rescind its previous orders in the interest of substantial justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the landlord had not provided a credible or sufficient explanation for his failure to comply with the court's directions issued on 23/12/2024 or for his absence during the scheduled proceedings. The assertion that he was unable to access the virtual court was not substantiated, and the delay in filing the present application was not justified. However, in the interest of substantial justice as mandated by Article 159 of the Constitution, and exercising its discretion under Section 12(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotel and Catering Establishments) Act, the Tribunal allowed the landlord's application to file a response within 14 days. The Tribunal also...

Court Disposition

Application allowed with conditions; landlord granted leave to respond; costs awarded to tenant.

Orders

  • The application dated 19/3/2025 is allowed; the landlord is allowed 14 days to file and serve responses to the tenant’s application dated 30/10/2024.
  • The tenant shall have 14 days upon service to file a supplementary affidavit if necessary and serve.