[2016] KERRT 21 (KLR)

[2016] KERRT 21 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the tenant had a duly signed lease agreement for an agreed rent of Kshs. 15,000, which placed the matter outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Act as per Section 2(1)(c) of Cap 296. In the absence of any submissions from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KERRT 21 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mwanzia Ronald; Defendant: Gatuanyaga Dairy Farm Co Ltd; Defendant: Njoka & Njoka Services Ltd
Court
Rent Restriction Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 522 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed with costs
Judges
HK KORIR
Legal Topics
Rent Restriction, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Lease Agreements
Source Language
en
Land and Property Rent Restriction Jurisdiction of Tribunal Lease Agreements

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

Parties

Mwanzia Ronald

Plaintiff

Gatuanyaga Dairy Farm Co Ltd

Defendant

Njoka & Njoka Services Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the Rent Restriction Tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject matter given the existence of a duly signed lease agreement for agreed rent.
  2. 2 Whether the ex-parte orders previously granted were irregular and should be vacated.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the tenant had a duly signed lease agreement for an agreed rent of Kshs. 15,000, which placed the matter outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Act as per Section 2(1)(c) of Cap 296. In the absence of any submissions from the plaintiff/tenant to challenge this position, the preliminary objection was upheld. Consequently, the application and the suit were dismissed with costs, and any ex-parte orders previously granted were declared irregular and vacated.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application and the suit are dismissed with costs.