[2024] KEBPRT 1228 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of six years, which exceeds the statutory maximum for a controlled tenancy under Cap 301. As such, the tenancy does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Additionally, the 1st Applicant had already withdrawn her complaint....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEBPRT 1228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Felistas Gathoni Ng’ang’a; Applicant: David Kyalo; Applicant: Annette Obungu; Respondent: Sil Vernarrow Limited
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E443 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Withdrawal
- Outcome
- Complaint and application by the 2nd Applicant dismissed for want of jurisdiction; 2nd Applicant to bear costs; 3rd Applicant's application to proceed to hearing.
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Lease Agreements, Business Premises Rent, Withdrawal of Complaint
- 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
Felistas Gathoni Ng’ang’a
Applicant
David Kyalo
Applicant
Annette Obungu
Applicant
Sil Vernarrow Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Withdrawal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenancy between the parties qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute based on the lease agreement period.
- 3 Effect of the 1st Applicant's withdrawal of complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the lease agreement between the parties was for a period of six years, which exceeds the statutory maximum for a controlled tenancy under Cap 301. As such, the tenancy does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Additionally, the 1st Applicant had already withdrawn her complaint. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the 2nd Applicant's complaint and application for want of jurisdiction, with costs to be borne by the 2nd Applicant. The application by the 3rd Applicant was set down for hearing on a future date.
Court Disposition
Complaint and application by the 2nd Applicant dismissed for want of jurisdiction; 2nd Applicant to bear costs; 3rd Applicant's application to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- The 2nd Applicant's complaint and application are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
- The 2nd Applicant will bear the costs of the complaint and application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Ng’ang’a & 2 others v Sil Vernarrow Limited (Tribunal Case E443 of 2024) [2024] KEBPRT 1228 (KLR) (14 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEBPRT 1228 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E443 of 2024
CN Mugambi, Chair
August 14, 2024
Between
Felistas Gathoni Ng’ang’a
1st Applicant
David Kyalo
2nd Applicant
Annette Obungu
3rd Applicant
and
Sil Vernarrow Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. On 06. 06. 2024, I delivered a ruling in this matter and directed the Respondent to file a further affidavit and annex to it the lease agreement between the parties. The Respondent complied by filing its affidavit sworn on 12. 6.2024.
2. I have perused the lease agreement between the parties and I do note that the same provides for a lease period of six (6) years which is well outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3. A controlled tenancy under Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya means a tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment;a.Which has not been reduced into writing orb.Which has been reduced into writing and whichi.Is for a period not exceeding five (5) years orii.Contains provisions for termination otherwise than for breach of contract within five (5) years from the commencement thereof oriii.Relates to premises of a class specified under subsection (2) of this Act.
4. From the above definition, it is therefore clear that the tenancy between the 2nd Applicant and the Respondent does not amount to a controlled tenancy and the Tribunal therefore lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute.
5. I do note from the record that on 2. 5.2024 the 1st Tenant/Applicant withdrew her complaint against the Respondent. In view of that withdrawal and my finding on jurisdiction above, the 2nd Tenant’s complaint and Application (as far as relevant to her) are hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The 2nd Tenant will bear the costs of the Complaint and the Application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14THDAY OF AUGUST, 2024HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI - CHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of Ms. Gichuru for the Respondent and in the absence of the Tenant/ApplicantCourt: The Application by the 3rd Tenant will proceed for hearing on 17. 9.2024. Hearing notice to issue