[2023] KEBPRT 1153 (KLR)

[2023] KEBPRT 1153 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application because the landlord-tenant relationship had been expressly terminated by its earlier ruling, and the tenant had vacated the premises as ordered. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is contingent upon the existence of a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEBPRT 1153 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evanson Wainaina Ngugi; Respondent: Peter Ndirangu Munguchi
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E644 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the landlord.
Judges
CN Mugambi, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Termination of Tenancy, Removal of Structures, Enforcement of Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Termination of Tenancy Removal of Structures Enforcement of Orders

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

Parties

Evanson Wainaina Ngugi

Applicant

Peter Ndirangu Munguchi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application after termination of the landlord-tenant relationship.
  2. 2 Whether the tenant is entitled to orders for release of goods and demolition of structures after vacating the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tenant's application because the landlord-tenant relationship had been expressly terminated by its earlier ruling, and the tenant had vacated the premises as ordered. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is contingent upon the existence of a controlled tenancy, which no longer existed between the parties. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the tenant was attempting to reopen litigation after a final determination without seeking a review, which is impermissible. As such, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the landlord.

Orders

  • The tenant's application dated 12.4.2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the landlord/respondent.