[2021] KEBPRT 304 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 304 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that neither the landlord nor the tenant had provided sufficient evidence to prove their respective monetary claims. The landlord failed to produce a rent book or any documentary evidence of rent arrears, as required by statute, and the tenant did not provide proof of payment or entitlement to a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 304 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Ng’ang’a Kiarie; Respondent: Dominic Ng’ang’a
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 15 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Landlord's Notice of Motion for Break in and Distress for Rent
Outcome
Application partially allowed; monetary claims dismissed for lack of proof.
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Distress for Rent, Rent Arrears, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Distress for Rent Rent Arrears Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Ng’ang’a Kiarie

Applicant

Dominic Ng’ang’a

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Landlord's Notice of Motion for Break in and Distress for Rent

  1. 1 Whether the landlord is entitled to break into the suit premises and levy distress for rent allegedly owed by the tenant.
  2. 2 Whether either party has proved their respective monetary claims for rent arrears and goodwill refund.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that neither the landlord nor the tenant had provided sufficient evidence to prove their respective monetary claims. The landlord failed to produce a rent book or any documentary evidence of rent arrears, as required by statute, and the tenant did not provide proof of payment or entitlement to a goodwill refund. Consequently, the Tribunal could not find that the landlord was owed rent or that the tenant was entitled to a refund. However, since the tenant had vacated the premises, the landlord was allowed to break into and regain possession of the premises if they remained closed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; monetary claims dismissed for lack of proof.

Orders

  • The landlord is allowed to break into the suit premises (if still closed) known as Nakuru Municipality Block 5/257 in Nakuru Town and gain possession.
  • Each party will bear its own costs.