[2025] KEBPRT 320 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 320 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Tenant failed to prove with certainty the number of shops he occupied, the rent paid, or entitlement to the premises allegedly locked. The evidence was inconsistent and lacked documentary proof of rent payment or occupation. The Tribunal held that it could not grant orders in vain or where the subject premises were uncertain. The claim for compensation failed for lack of specific pleading and strict proof of special damages. On the landlady's claim for rent arrears, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction as the claim related to a residential tenancy, not a controlled business tenancy under the Act. Both parties failed in their respective claims, and each was...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 320 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Otieno Osewe; Respondent: Rosemary Wambui; Respondent: Stevenson Wachira Wanjohi t/a First Properties Limited
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E008 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Tenant's application dismissed; landlady's claim for rent arrears struck out for want of jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Injunctive Relief, Burden of Proof, Special Damages, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Injunctive Relief Burden of Proof Special Damages 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Otieno Osewe

Applicant

Rosemary Wambui

Respondent

Stevenson Wachira Wanjohi t/a First Properties Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tenant's application for injunctive relief and compensation is merited.
  2. 2 Whether the landlady's claim for rent arrears is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and has merit.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Tenant failed to prove with certainty the number of shops he occupied, the rent paid, or entitlement to the premises allegedly locked. The evidence was inconsistent and lacked documentary proof of rent payment or occupation. The Tribunal held that it could not grant orders in vain or where the subject premises were uncertain. The claim for compensation failed for lack of specific pleading and strict proof of special damages. On the landlady's claim for rent arrears, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction as the claim related to a residential tenancy, not a controlled business tenancy under the Act. Both parties failed in their respective claims, and each was...

Court Disposition

Tenant's application dismissed; landlady's claim for rent arrears struck out for want of jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The Tenant’s reference dated 3/3/2025 and the Application thereof dated 4/3/2025 are dismissed.
  • The landlady’s claim for rent arrears is struck out for want of jurisdiction.