[2023] KEBPRT 1305 (KLR)
The Tribunal held that Section 9(3) of Cap 301 only bars the issuance of a further tenancy notice within the specified period if it is based on matters affected by a previous determination. In this case, the previous determination (BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021) related to a notice to increase rent, while the current...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEBPRT 1305 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Njino Ngwiri; Respondent: John Wanyange; Respondent: Norman Njuguna; Respondent: Lucy Wangui Chege (Sued as the administrators of the Estate of the late Kariu Nyange)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E142 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the landlord
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Statutory Notice Requirements
- 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
Peter Njino Ngwiri
Applicant
John Wanyange
Respondent
Norman Njuguna
Respondent
Lucy Wangui Chege (Sued as the administrators of the Estate of the late Kariu Nyange)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the landlord was barred from issuing a notice to terminate tenancy within twelve months of a previous determination affecting the same premises.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's notice to terminate tenancy under Section 9(3) of Cap 301.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that Section 9(3) of Cap 301 only bars the issuance of a further tenancy notice within the specified period if it is based on matters affected by a previous determination. In this case, the previous determination (BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021) related to a notice to increase rent, while the current notice seeks to terminate the tenancy on different grounds (landlord's intention to occupy the premises). Therefore, the current notice is not barred by Section 9(3), and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to entertain it. The tenant's preliminary objection was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the landlord.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the landlord
Orders
- The tenant's notice of preliminary objection dated 16.6.2023 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the landlord.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Ngwiri v Wanyange & 2 others (Tribunal Case E142 of 2022) [2023] KEBPRT 1305 (KLR) (31 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEBPRT 1305 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E142 of 2022
CN Mugambi, Chair
July 31, 2023
Between
Peter Njino Ngwiri
Tenant
and
John Wanyange
1st Landlord
Norman Njuguna
2nd Landlord
Lucy Wangui Chege (Sued as the administrators of the Estate of the late Kariu Nyange)
3rd Landlord
Ruling
1. The tenant’s notice of preliminary objection dated 16. 6.2023 is majorly brought on the ground that the notice to terminate or alter terms of tenancy dated 18. 10. 2022 is incompetent having been issued before expiration of twelve (12) months after determination of the previous reference as between the parties and over the same premises. the tenant’s objection is also on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as Section 9(3) of Cap 301 bars the Tribunal from entertaining the landlord’s objection.
Submissions 2. Both parties have filed their respective submissions, I will consider them in this ruling.
Analysis and determination 3. The tenant’s submissions is that in BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021, the reference therein was determined on 13. 5.2022. The reference in Case No. BPRT 13 of 2021, between the same parties and for the same business/suit premises was filed in opposition to a notice by the landlord to increase rent dated 1. 10. 2020. in that case, the court found that the landlord’s notice dated 1. 10. 2020 did not conform with the provisions of Section 4 of Cap 301 and was therefore illegal.
4. The instant notice is the one dated 18. 10. 2022 and the landlord in the said notice seeks to terminate the tenant’s tenancy for the reasons that he wishes to occupy the premises for a period of not less than one year.
5. The issue that then arises for determination is whether the landlord can issue another notice to the tenant before the expiry of twelve (12) months from the date of the court’s determination in BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021.
6. Section 9(3) of Cap 301 provides as follows:-“where a Tribunal has made a determination upon a reference, no further tenancy notice shall be given in respect of the premises concerned, which is based on any of the matters affected by the determination-a.In the case of assessment of rent, until after the expiration of two years.b.In any other case, until after the expiration of twelve monthsAfter the date of the determination unless the Tribunal at the time of the determination specifies some shorter period.What were the matters affected by the determination in BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021? The notice therein touched on the matter of rent increment and in my view the instant notice which seeks to terminate tenancy on grounds other than increment of rent cannot be a matter affected by the determination in BPRT Case No. 13 of 2021.
7. A proper reading of Section 9(3) clearly points to the interpretation that if one serves a notice to increase rent and the tenant files a reference which is eventually determined, then another notice for the same purpose or on the same grounds cannot be raised before the expiration of two years. Further, if a landlord issues a notice to terminate tenancy on any other grounds, other than rent increment, and the tenant files a reference in opposition to that notice, then, after the court makes a determination on that reference, no other notice on the same grounds may be brought before the expiration of twelve months.
8. Consequently, the only notice to alter or terminate tenancy that the landlord would have been barred from bringing before the expiry of two years is a notice to alter the tenancy by increasing rent.
9. There is absolutely no bar to the landlord bringing a notice to terminate tenancy as he has done in the presence case.
10. I therefore do not find any merits in the notice of preliminary objection by the tenant and the same is dismissed with costs to the landlord.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2023. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI - CHAIRPERSON31. 7.2023In the presence of;Mr. Mwangi for the tenantMr. Njoroge for the landlord