[2025] KEBPRT 171 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the landlord admitted the 2nd applicant was his tenant and that the applicants were in possession of the premises. The landlord's attempt to terminate the tenancy without issuing a statutory notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301 was unlawful. The alleged breaches by the tenants, including...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 171 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Teresiah Murugi Njeru; Applicant: Grace Wanjiku Miruru; Respondent: Peter Nyoike
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E1416 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Rent Arrears, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Teresiah Murugi Njeru
Applicant
Grace Wanjiku Miruru
Applicant
Peter Nyoike
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenants are entitled to orders restraining the landlord from interfering with their occupation of the premises.
- 2 Whether the landlord can lawfully demand that the tenants vacate the premises without issuing a statutory notice under Cap 301.
- 3 Whether the tenants should be allowed to deposit rent in court if the landlord refuses to accept payment.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the landlord admitted the 2nd applicant was his tenant and that the applicants were in possession of the premises. The landlord's attempt to terminate the tenancy without issuing a statutory notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301 was unlawful. The alleged breaches by the tenants, including subletting and unauthorized repairs, should have been set out as grounds in a proper notice to terminate the tenancy. As no such notice was issued, the landlord could not lawfully demand that the applicants vacate. The tribunal further held that, pending determination of the dispute, the tenants should be allowed to pay rent, and if the landlord refuses to accept it, deposit the...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The tenants' application is allowed in terms of prayer 5 and 6.
- The tenants are to clear all rent arrears owing to the landlord; if the landlord fails to accept the rent, the tenants may deposit the same in court within thirty (30) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Njeru & another v Nyoike (Tribunal Case E1416 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 171 (KLR) (25 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 171 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E1416 of 2024
CN Mugambi, Chair
February 25, 2025
Between
Teresiah Murugi Njeru
1st Applicant
Grace Wanjiku Miruru
2nd Applicant
and
Peter Nyoike
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Tenants’ Application dated 24. 12. 2024 seeks orders restraining the Landlord from in any manner interfering with the Tenants quiet use and occupation of the Tenants’ premises at Uthiru Cooperation. The Tenants have also sought an order that the Landlord be ordered to accept the monthly rent unconditionally and in default, the Tenants be allowed to deposit the rent in court.
2. The Tenants in the affidavit sworn by the 1st Tenant/Applicant on 24. 12. 2024 have deponed that they have been Tenants in the suit premises paying a monthly rent of Kshs. 13,000/= without fail.
3. The 1st Applicant also depones that she sent to the Respondent Kshs. 26,000/= via Mpesa using her husband’s cellphone number which rent transaction was reversed.
4. The Tenant depondes that she has done repairs on the suit premises amounting to Kshs. 80,000/=.
5. It is the Tenants further deposition that the Landlord, on 23. 12. 2024 threatened to lock the suit premises due to business rivalry.
6. The Respondent in his Replying affidavit sworn on 21. 1.2025 has deponed that as at July 2024, the Tenants had accumulated rent arrears in the sum of Kshs. 59,800/=.
7. The Respondent has also deponed that the 2nd Respondent illegally sublet the suit premises to the 1st Applicant who without the consent of the Landlord embarked on major repairs of the premises.
8. It is the Landlord’s deposition that he reversed the Mpesa transaction as it had emanated from a stranger.
9. It is also deponed by the Respondent that when he discovered the premises had been sublet and major repairs therein carried out, he ordered the Applicants to vacate the suit premises and instead of so vacating, the Applicants chose to come to court.
10. The Respondent depones that the 1st Applicant is a total stranger and has illegally sublet the premises from the 2nd Applicant who is in rent arrears.
Determination 11. The only issue that arises for determination in this Application is whether the Tenants are entitled to the orders they have sought in their Application.
12. The Applicants at paragraph 2 of the supporting affidavit describe themselves as “running our business” in the suit premises. The Respondent only acknowledges the 2nd Applicant and has alleged that the 1st Respondent is on the premises illegally.It is not possible at this juncture to tell what the true position is but suffice it to say that, the Applicants are currently in use and possession of the suit premises.
13. The Landlord admits that when he realized that the suit premises had been occupied by the 1st Applicant and major repairs had been carried out, he ordered the Applicants to leave the premises and pay his rent arrears. The Landlord at least admits that the 2nd Applicant is his Tenant. That being the case, if the Respondent was minded of terminating the tenancy between himself and the said Tenant, the Respondent was required by the provisions of Section 4(2) of Cap 301 to issue a notice to terminate tenancy upon the said Tenant. This the Respondnet did not do and he cannot purport to terminate a controlled tenancy in any other manner other than the one provided for under Cap 301. (See Section 4(1) of Cap 301 for this preposition).
14. Consequently, the demand by the Landlord that the Applicants vacate the premises on the basis of the alleged transgressions is not legally sound. The transgressions that the Respondent alleges as against the Tenants or at least the 2nd Tenant ought to have been set out as the grounds for possible termination of tenancy in the notice to terminate to be issued under the provisions of Section 4(2) of Cap 301.
15. The Respondent has in his affidavit deponed that the Tenants are in rent arrears amounting to Kshs. 59,800/=. The Respondent has at the same time admitted that he reversed a transaction by a stranger who had sent him some money. That stranger has now been revealed to be the 1st Tenant/Applicant. As the premises still remain the property of the Respondent, I do not see any harm in the Tenants continuing to pay the rent until this matter is heard and determined.
16. In view of the foregoing findings, I hereby make the following orders in disposing of this matter;a.The Tenants’ Application is allowed in terms of prayer 5 and 6 thereof.b.The Tenants’ are to clear all rent arrears owing to the Landlord and the Landlord failing to accept the rent, the Tenants are hereby allowed to deposit the same in court within the next thirty (30) days.c.The Tenants’ failing to clear the rent arrears and/or deposit the same at the Tribunal, as ordered in order (b) above, the Landlord will be at liberty to levy distress for rent.d.Each party will bear their own costs of the Application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI - CHAIRPESONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the absence of the parties