[2025] KEBPRT 300 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 300 (KLR)

The tribunal found that after the landlord issued a termination notice under Section 4(2) of the Act, only the tenant, as the receiving party, had the right to refer the matter to the tribunal under Section 6. The landlord, having issued the notice, could not invoke the tribunal's jurisdiction to seek vacant possession or other reliefs. The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's application, and this defect could not be cured by Article 159 of the Constitution. As a result, the reference and notice of motion were struck out for want of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the tenant.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 300 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nuru Ramadhan; Respondent: Francis Kiarie Muibau
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E074 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction
Outcome
Application and reference struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to tenant.
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Termination of Tenancy, Notice of Termination, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Jurisdiction of Tribunal Termination of Tenancy Notice of Termination Costs Award

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nuru Ramadhan

Applicant

Francis Kiarie Muibau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord had legal foundation to commence the reference and application before the tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's application after issuance of a termination notice under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with Section 6 of the Act can be cured by Article 159 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that after the landlord issued a termination notice under Section 4(2) of the Act, only the tenant, as the receiving party, had the right to refer the matter to the tribunal under Section 6. The landlord, having issued the notice, could not invoke the tribunal's jurisdiction to seek vacant possession or other reliefs. The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's application, and this defect could not be cured by Article 159 of the Constitution. As a result, the reference and notice of motion were struck out for want of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the tenant.

Court Disposition

Application and reference struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to tenant.

Orders

  • The reference and notice of motion application both dated 26/2/2025 are struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • The tenant is awarded costs assessed at Kshs.30,000 to be offset from rent payable.