[2024] KEBPRT 636 (KLR)

[2024] KEBPRT 636 (KLR)

The tribunal found that while the landlord's notice to terminate the tenancy was issued in accordance with the statutory timeline, the substantive grounds for termination—namely, the need to carry out renovations—were not sufficiently established. The landlord failed to provide the necessary documentation, such as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEBPRT 636 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shaidi Salama t/a Central Exhibitions; Respondent: Molo Group; Respondent: Deemelectronics; Respondent: James Kimani; Respondent: Gatach Enterprises; Respondent: Leah Mukami; Respondent: Samuel Thanu; Respondent: Kennedy Ndungu
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1004 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Validity of Landlord's Notice and Tenant's Application
Outcome
Tenant's application allowed; landlord's notice declared invalid; landlord's application dismissed; tenant to remain in occupation; liberty to serve fresh notice with proper documentation; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
A Muma
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Notice Requirements, Landlord Obligations, Tenant Protection
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Termination of Tenancy Notice Requirements Landlord Obligations Tenant Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaidi Salama t/a Central Exhibitions

Applicant

Molo Group

Respondent

Deemelectronics

Respondent

James Kimani

Respondent

Gatach Enterprises

Respondent

Leah Mukami

Respondent

Samuel Thanu

Respondent

Kennedy Ndungu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Application / Ruling on Validity of Landlord's Notice and Tenant's Application

  1. 1 Whether the notice issued by the landlord to terminate the tenancy was valid under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the lease provided for a parking space for the tenant.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's stated grounds for termination (renovation) justified eviction under the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that while the landlord's notice to terminate the tenancy was issued in accordance with the statutory timeline, the substantive grounds for termination—namely, the need to carry out renovations—were not sufficiently established. The landlord failed to provide the necessary documentation, such as approved building plans and a structural engineer's report, to demonstrate that the intended renovations required vacant possession. Furthermore, the tribunal determined that the proposed renovations could be carried out while the tenant remained in occupation, and thus did not justify eviction under section 7(f) of Cap 301. The tribunal also noted that the issue of the notice...

Court Disposition

Tenant's application allowed; landlord's notice declared invalid; landlord's application dismissed; tenant to remain in occupation; liberty to serve fresh notice with proper documentation; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The landlord's notice dated 27th April 2023 is declared invalid for want of reasoned grounds for eviction.
  • The tenant's application and reference dated 26th October 2023 is allowed in terms of prayer 4.