Ratemo v Kuronoi [2025] KEBPRT 322 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 322 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Panel
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Case number
- Tribunal Case E144 of 2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Panel
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Case number
- Tribunal Case E144 of 2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The tribunal found that the issues in dispute, including whether the applicant was in rent arrears, whether the landlord had lawfully locked the premises, and whether there was subletting or loss of business, were contested and required full hearing with oral evidence. To preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, the tribunal granted the applicant quiet possession of the premises pending hearing and determination of the reference, conditional upon payment of admitted rent arrears of Kshs. 30,000 within 30 days and continued payment of rent as it accrues. The tribunal declined to grant compensation at this stage, holding that such claims would be determined after hearing the reference. Costs were reserved to abide the outcome of the reference.
Court disposition
Application allowed in part; interim possession granted to applicant pending hearing of reference; conditional orders on rent arrears and future rent; costs reserved.
Orders
- The applicant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises pending hearing and determination of the reference.
- The applicant shall settle the admitted rent arrears at Kshs. 30,000 within 30 days; in default, the landlord may levy distress for recovery at the applicant's expense.
- The applicant shall continue to settle rent as it accrues and in advance, on or before the 5th of each month.
- Parties shall comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 30 days, with the applicant to serve first within 15 days and the landlord to respond within the next 15 days.
- Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the reference.
02
Material facts
Parties
Japhet Moriga Ratemo
ApplicantSarah Kuronoi
Respondent Counsel: Mr. NjorogeAmounts and remedies
- Admitted Rent Arrears to Be Paid by Applicant: KES 30,000
- Claimed Compensation for Loss of Business (not Awarded at This Stage): KES 140,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Restoration of Possession and Interim Relief
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of possession of the demised premises pending hearing of the reference.
- 02
Whether the landlord was justified in locking the premises and/or evicting the tenant contrary to Cap. 301.
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for loss of business.
- 04
Who should bear the costs of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the landlord unlawfully locked his business premises, causing loss of business and interfering with his quiet possession. He denied being in rent arrears except for Kshs. 300,000 accrued during the COVID period, claimed to have spent Kshs. 460,000 on renovations, and asserted that the alleged arrears for late 2023 and 2024 were settled by family members. He denied subletting the premises and sought restoration of possession, restraint orders against the landlord, and compensation for business loss.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the applicant was a serial rent defaulter owing over Kshs. 50,000, had sublet the premises without consent to a third party, and had not carried out renovations or suffered business loss as claimed. She denied locking the premises and asserted that the applicant had vacated. She sought dismissal of the application, payment of arrears, and eviction of the applicant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 12(4), Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301)
The tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act to grant interim reliefs to preserve the status quo pending determination of the reference.
- 02
Order 11, Civil Procedure Rules; general principles of fair hearing
Substantive justice requires that parties be heard on contested facts through viva voce evidence before final determination.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The tribunal found that the issues in dispute, including whether the applicant was in rent arrears, whether the landlord had lawfully locked the premises, and whether there was subletting or loss of business, were contested and required full hearing with oral evidence. To preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, the tribunal granted the applicant quiet possession of the premises pending hearing and determination of the reference, conditional upon payment of admitted rent arrears of Kshs. 30,000 within 30 days and continued payment of rent as it accrues. The tribunal declined to grant compensation at this stage, holding that such claims would be determined after hearing the reference. Costs were reserved to abide the outcome of the reference.
Obiter and limits
- The court will on hearing of the reference determine whether the rents for between 7/2/2025 and 10/4/2025 are payable or not.
- For substantive justice to be done and to be seen to be done, this court needs to hear both parties when canvassing on the reference dated 6/2/2025 for a just determination to be rendered in this matter.
Court disposition
Application allowed in part; interim possession granted to applicant pending hearing of reference; conditional orders on rent arrears and future rent; costs reserved.
- The applicant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises pending hearing and determination of the reference.
- The applicant shall settle the admitted rent arrears at Kshs. 30,000 within 30 days; in default, the landlord may levy distress for recovery at the applicant's expense.
- The applicant shall continue to settle rent as it accrues and in advance, on or before the 5th of each month.
- Parties shall comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 30 days, with the applicant to serve first within 15 days and the landlord to respond within the next 15 days.
- Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the reference.
Source and reliance status
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Judgment
Ratemo v Kuronoi (Tribunal Case E144 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 322 (KLR) (At Nairobi) (2 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 322 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
At Nairobi
Tribunal Case E144 of 2025
N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member
July 2, 2025
Between
Japhet Moriga Ratemo
Applicant
and
Sarah Kuronoi
Respondent
Ruling
1. This Ruling is on the Tenant’s /Applicant’s application dated 6/2/2025. The same was originated through the reference of the even date which was anchored on Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap. 301 of the Laws of Kenya hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.
2. The grievance in the reference is that:-“The Landlord has locked my business premises and threatened to evict contrary to Cap. 301 of Laws of Kenya,”.
3. In the Application, the Tenant sought to have the Landlord compelled to re-open the premises or in the alternative regain access with the assistance of the OCS Jamuhuri Police Station. He also sought to have the Landlord restrained from letting out the premises to any 3rd party and the Landlord to also be restrained from in any way interfering with the Tenant’s quiet possession of the premises.
4. The Tenant also prayed for compensation at Kshs.140,000/- for loss of business and that all ensuing orders be enforced by the OCS Jamuhuri Police Station.
5. On her part, the landlord filed the Replying Affidavit dated 13/3/2025 which discounted all the averments in the reference and Application thereof. She therefore sought for the dismissal of the Tenant’s Application, he be compelled to settle all the rents in arrears and vacate the premises.
6. The Tenant thereafter filed what he referred to as a further Replying Affidavit sworn on the 21/3/2025. Thereafter and in particular on the 27/5/2025, both parties rendered their oral submissions and closed their respective cases on the aforesaid application dated 6/2/2025.
7. The case for the Tenant is that:-i.The landlord had arbitrarily and in breach of the law locked his premises.ii.He had no rent arrears except some Kshs.300,000/- accrued during the covid time.iii.He had expended Kshs.460,000/- on renovations of the premises and had further suffered loss of business when the landlord closed the premises.iv.Had not sublet the demised premises to one Rodah Marobi or to anyone else and that he run the business with his partner one Geoffrey Arori Getui.v.The rent alleged to be in arrears for December, 2023 July, September and December, 2024 was duly settled by his sister and his brother. The claimed rent for February and March, 2025 was not payable as the landlord had locked the premises.vi.His shop was locked for between the 7/2/2025 and 10/4/2025 despite the orders of this court made on the 7/2/2025.
8. The evidence of the landlord on the other hand is that:-i.The Tenant is a serial rent defaulter who was perpetually in breach of the Tenancy agreement.ii.At the time to court, he owed the landlord over Kshs.50,000/-.iii.She had not locked up the premises as alleged and the same had remained open but run by a subtenant one Rodah Marubi who was sublet without her consent.iv.There were no renovations carried out by the Tenant at Kshs.460,000/- nor was there any evidence of loss of business at Kshs.140,000/- as claimed.v.The premises were empty and the Tenant had disappeared after renting the same to a 3rd party.vi.The Tenant should be compelled to settle the Kshs.50,000/- in rent arrears and be evicted from the demised premises.
9. We have perused the parties pleadings and the oral evidence rendered in court and are of the view that the issues that arise thereof for determination are the following:-i.Whether the Application dated 6/2/2025 is merited.ii.Who should bear the costs of this suit.
10. On whether the application dated 6/2/2025 is merited, it is in our view that this is a matter that would require viva voce evidence which will be subject to test through cross-examination to determine the issues in controversy.
11. The Tenant has asserted that he was not in any rent arrears except for that period during the covid pandemic when he accrued rent arrears at Kshs.33,000/-. The same was to be settled in January 2025 but that he was not able to settled the same then.
12. It was the evidence of the Tenant that the landlord locked the premises on the 7/2/2025 and only re-opened the same on 10/4/2025. This was vehemently denied by the landlord who also denied that the Tenant was not in rent arrears.
13. To the landlord, the Tenant had sublet the premises to one Rodah Marubi and vacated the same whereas the position of the Tenant was that he was running the business with one Geoffrey Arori Getui who was his business partner.
14. The parties could also not agree on whether any renovations had been carried out at the premises nor that the Tenant had suffered any loss of Business at Kshs.140,000/- at all.
15. From the foregoing, it is our view that for substantive justice to be done and to be seen to be done, this court needs to hear both parties when canvassing on the reference dated 6/2/2025 for a just determination to be rendered in this matter.
16. We would therefore allow the application dated 6/2/2025 in terms that the Tenant shall be allowed quiet possession of the demised premises pending the hearing and determination of the reference dated 6/2/2025. The Tenant shall in the meantime settle the rent arrears admitted at Kshs.30,000/- within 30 days of the date of this Ruling.
17. The Tenant shall also continue to pay rent as and when the same accrues and becomes due. This has to be in advance and in any event on or before the 5th of each month. The court will on hearing of the reference determine whether the rents for between 7/2/2025 and 10/4/2025 are payable or not.
18. On costs, it is our view that the same should abide the outcome of the reference herein.
19. In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-i.That the application dated 5/2/2025 is allowed in terms that the Tenant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises pending the hearing and determination of the reference herein.ii.That the Tenant shall settle the admitted rent arrears at Kshs.30,000/- in the next 30 days of the date hereof and in default, the landlord shall be at liberty to levy distress in recovery thereof at the expense of the Tenant.iii.That the Tenant shall continue to settle the rents as they accrue and fall due and in advance and in any event on or before the 5th of the current month.iv.That the parties shall comply with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules in 30 days and exchange the same with the Tenant taking the first 15 days and then even days for the landlord on service to comply.v.That the costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference.
20. Those are the orders of the court.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS, HON. JOYCE MURIGI,PANEL CHAIRPERSON, MEMBER,BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL. BPRT.Ruling delivered in the presence of Tenant and Mr. Njoroge for the Landlady.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.