[2025] KEBPRT 295 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 295 (KLR)

The Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute because the premises in question, being a quarry, do not fall within the definition of a shop, hotel, or catering establishment as set out in Section 2(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301). The Tribunal relied on statutory interpretation and relevant case law, including the Lillian S case on the primacy of jurisdiction and Colts Construction Ltd on the nature of quarry premises. As a result, all applications and the reference were struck out for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal further exercised its discretion on costs, directing each party to bear...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 295 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Ochieng Ondego; Respondent: Kelvin Ntapayia
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E010 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications
Outcome
Applications and reference struck out for want of jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Definition of Business Premises, Quarry Land Disputes, Striking Out Proceedings
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Tribunal Definition of Business Premises Quarry Land Disputes Striking Out Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ochieng Ondego

Applicant

Kelvin Ntapayia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes involving quarry sites.
  2. 2 Whether the premises in question qualify as a shop, hotel, or catering establishment under Cap. 301.
  3. 3 Whether the applications and reference should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute because the premises in question, being a quarry, do not fall within the definition of a shop, hotel, or catering establishment as set out in Section 2(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301). The Tribunal relied on statutory interpretation and relevant case law, including the Lillian S case on the primacy of jurisdiction and Colts Construction Ltd on the nature of quarry premises. As a result, all applications and the reference were struck out for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal further exercised its discretion on costs, directing each party to bear...

Court Disposition

Applications and reference struck out for want of jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The reference dated 14/10/2024 and the notice of motion applications dated 14/10/2024 and 6/2/2025 are all struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • Each party shall bear own costs of these proceedings.