[2025] KEBPRT 24 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the tenant's conduct in filing and subsequently withdrawing the reference and application, without pursuing the matter or disclosing the existence of related proceedings, amounted to an abuse of the court process and a waste of judicial time. However, since the tenant had filed a notice to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 24 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George W Murago t/a Indosteel Hardware; Respondent: Kamuchinde Company Limited; Respondent: Sannex Enterprises Limited
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E788 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Application
- Outcome
- Application for withdrawal allowed; suit and application marked as withdrawn; costs awarded to landlord.
- Judges
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Abuse of Process, Costs Award, Business Premises Rent, Judicial Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George W Murago t/a Indosteel Hardware
Applicant
Kamuchinde Company Limited
Respondent
Sannex Enterprises Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenant/applicant is entitled to withdraw the reference and notice of motion application.
- 2 Whether the conduct of the tenant amounts to abuse of court process.
- 3 Whether the landlord is entitled to costs upon withdrawal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the tenant's conduct in filing and subsequently withdrawing the reference and application, without pursuing the matter or disclosing the existence of related proceedings, amounted to an abuse of the court process and a waste of judicial time. However, since the tenant had filed a notice to withdraw, the tribunal had no grounds to refuse the request. Exercising its discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal and awarded costs to the landlord, emphasizing the need to deter misuse of judicial resources and ensure fairness to the party put to unnecessary expense.
Court Disposition
Application for withdrawal allowed; suit and application marked as withdrawn; costs awarded to landlord.
Orders
- The reference and notice of motion application both dated 22.7.2024 are marked as withdrawn.
- The landlord is awarded costs assessed at Kshs. 30,000/=.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Murago t/a Indosteel Hardware v Kamuchinde Company Limited & another (Tribunal Case E788 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 24 (KLR) (15 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 24 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E788 of 2024
N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member
January 15, 2025
Between
George W Murago t/a Indosteel Hardware
Tenant
and
Kamuchinde Company Limited
1st Landlord
Sannex Enterprises Limited
2nd Landlord
Ruling
1. This matter was coming up for Ruling on the Application by the Tenant/Applicant dated 22. 7.2024. The Application is founded on the Reference thereof of the same date.
2. The Landlord in response to the Application filed the Replying affidavit sworn by Stephen Kinugu Ndegwa on the 14. 8.2024. The said deponent is said to be a director of the 1st Respondent. It also filed its submissions dated 19. 9.2024.
3. Though afforded several opportunities, the Tenant did not file any submissions between the 9. 8.2024 and 10. 1.2025 when it eventually filed the notice to withdraw both the Reference and Notice of motion Application dated 22. 7.2024.
4. From the casual observation of the conduct of the Tenant in these proceedings, it is plain that he was not pursuing the cause of justice. This suit was merely meant to obstruct the cause of justice by delaying or altogether defeating the determination of this court in BPRT Case No. E1063 of 2023.
5. We are of the view that this is conduct that is not acceptable and it does not only abuse the court process, it unnecessarily partakes of precious judicial time and is an obstruction to the orderly and fair administration of justice.
6. It was also not kind on the part of the Counsel for the Tenant to fail to disclose in the pleadings, the existence and determination thereof of BPRT Case No. E1063/2023.
7. However, as that may, the Tenant has filed the notice to withdraw the entire suit and Application herein. We would have no grounds to decline such a request. The best we can do in the circumstances is to allow the Application for withdrawal dated 10. 1.2025 and award costs to the Landlord in exercise of our judicial discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
8. The orders that then commend to us in the circumstances are as follows;-a.That the Reference and notice of motion Application both dated 22. 7.2024 are marked as withdrawn.b.That the Landlord is awarded costs assessed at Kshs. 30,000/=.c.That this file is ordered closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS - PANEL CHAIRPERSONHON. JOYCE MURIGI - MEMBERBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of:-M/S Aluondo for the 1st Respondent/LandlordM/S T.M. Kuria for the Tenant/Applicant - Absent