[2025] KEBPRT 254 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 254 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because the existence of a controlled tenancy and the lawfulness of the alleged eviction were matters within its statutory mandate, regardless of the tenant's physical occupation at the time of filing. The landlord's failure to issue a statutory notice before terminating the tenancy and his subsequent actions—locking out the tenant and leasing to a third party—constituted unlawful eviction. The landlord's procedural objections and claims of voluntary vacation were rejected as insufficient and unsupported by credible evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory, and self-help...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 254 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rabecca Omonya; Respondent: Benard Mandala
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E170 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Opposed Applications
Outcome
Tenant's application partly succeeds; landlord's application dismissed.
Judges
P Kitur
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Unlawful Eviction, Statutory Notice Requirements, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Unlawful Eviction Statutory Notice Requirements Jurisdiction of Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabecca Omonya

Applicant

Benard Mandala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Application / Ruling on Opposed Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the matter given the tenant is not in occupation of the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the tenant's application for redress against alleged unlawful eviction is meritorious.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's application to set aside interim orders and restrain the tenant warrants relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because the existence of a controlled tenancy and the lawfulness of the alleged eviction were matters within its statutory mandate, regardless of the tenant's physical occupation at the time of filing. The landlord's failure to issue a statutory notice before terminating the tenancy and his subsequent actions—locking out the tenant and leasing to a third party—constituted unlawful eviction. The landlord's procedural objections and claims of voluntary vacation were rejected as insufficient and unsupported by credible evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory, and self-help...

Court Disposition

Tenant's application partly succeeds; landlord's application dismissed.

Orders

  • The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter.
  • The landlord's application dated 14th November 2024 is dismissed.