[2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the suit premises were residential and not business premises, and therefore did not fall within the definition of a controlled tenancy under section 2(1) of Cap. 301. As such, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. Furthermore, since the applicant had vacated the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ann Wanjiru Njeri; Respondent: Peter Ngunjiri; Respondent: Macharia Karanja; Respondent: Netta Nyawira; Respondent: Stephen Njau
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E179 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction
- Outcome
- proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction with costs to respondents
- Judges
- Gakuhi Chege
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Residential Vs Commercial Premises
- 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
Ann Wanjiru Njeri
Applicant
Peter Ngunjiri
Respondent
Macharia Karanja
Respondent
Netta Nyawira
Respondent
Stephen Njau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes relating to residential premises.
- 2 Whether the proceedings were properly instituted before the Tribunal given the nature of the tenancy.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal can determine the issue of rent arrears after the tenant has vacated the premises.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the suit premises were residential and not business premises, and therefore did not fall within the definition of a controlled tenancy under section 2(1) of Cap. 301. As such, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. Furthermore, since the applicant had vacated the premises, the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased, further divesting the Tribunal of jurisdiction. Any claim for rent arrears by the landlord should be pursued in the ordinary civil courts as a debt claim. Consequently, the proceedings were struck out for want of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction with costs to respondents
Orders
- The instant proceedings are hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents for want of jurisdiction.
- The Respondents' costs are assessed at Kshs.20,000/- against the tenant/applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Njeri v Ngunjiri & 3 others (Tribunal Case E179 of 2022) [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR) (Civ) (15 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Civil
Tribunal Case E179 of 2022
Gakuhi Chege, Vice Chair
July 15, 2022
Between
Ann Wanjiru Njeri
Applicant
and
Peter Ngunjiri
1st Respondent
Macharia Karanja
2nd Respondent
Netta Nyawira
3rd Respondent
Stephen Njau
4th Respondent
Ruling
1. This matter was instituted by the tenant seeking for restraining orders against the Respondents from interfering with her quiet occupation and lawful enjoyment of the suit premises located at Zimmerman, Kasarani pending hearing interpartes.
2. According to the tenant/applicant, she took the premises at a monthly rent of Kshs.10,000/-.
3. On 9th May 2022, this Tribunal was informed that the tenant vacated the suit premises in the month of April 2022. The Landlord’s counsel indicated that the tenant left with rent arrears and the matter was therefore listed for mention on 27th May 2022 to confirm the rent due.
4. On 27th May 2022, both counsels agreed to file submissions although the landlord’s counsel had already filed submissions dated 10th May 2022. According to the landlord, the tenant had leased two (2) units which are residential at a rent of Kshs.10,000/- per unit. The first unit was leased in September 2021 while the second unit was leased in November 2021.
5. In a replying affidavit sworn on 10th March 2022 at paragraph 5 the landlord deposes as follows:-“That the said units were leased to the applicant for purposes of residing and living only, since the houses user is residential and not commercial as the applicant has turned them (annexed herein are photographs of the houses marked as ‘PMN-01’)”.
6. It is therefore clear that the suit premises being residential and not business premises do not pass the test of a controlled tenancy and the instant proceedings were wrongly instituted before this Tribunal which has no jurisdiction under section 2(1) of Cap. 301Laws of Kenya.
7. Secondly, the tenant having vacated the suit premises, this Tribunal’s jurisdiction was lost as the landlord/tenant relationship ceased (see the case of Pritam -vs- Ratilal And Another (1977) E.A 560 at page 562).
8. In the premises, this Tribunal is unable to determine the issue of rent arrears claimed by the landlord which claim ought to be pursued in the ordinary courts as a civil debt.
9. I shall therefore proceed to strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction with costs to the Respondents.
10. In conclusion the following orders commend to me:-i. The instant proceedings are hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents for want of jurisdiction.ii. The Respondents costs are assessed at Kshs.20,000/- against the tenant/applicant.
It is so ordered.RULING DATED, SIGNED AND VIRTUALLY DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022. HON. GAKUHI CHEGEVICE CHAIRBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALIn the presence of:Miss Mbaabu holding brief for Miss Charo for the RespondentNo appearance for the Tenant.