[2015] KEELC 545 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs, as landlords, properly served the defendants with notices to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301. The defendants failed to file a reference to the Tribunal as required by law and did not respond...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 545 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shamshad Ahmed Mohammed Yakub; Plaintiff: Farhan Mohamed Yusuf; Defendant: Rashid Kaluma Okedi; Defendant: Joseph K. Ndungu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 153 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' case proved; eviction order granted against defendants; plaintiffs awarded costs.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Termination of Tenancy, Eviction Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shamshad Ahmed Mohammed Yakub
Plaintiff
Farhan Mohamed Yusuf
Plaintiff
Rashid Kaluma Okedi
Defendant
Joseph K. Ndungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants' tenancy was lawfully terminated under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act.
- 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to remain on the premises after expiry of the termination notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs, as landlords, properly served the defendants with notices to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301. The defendants failed to file a reference to the Tribunal as required by law and did not respond to the suit. Consequently, the tenancy was lawfully terminated effective 1/9/2014, and any continued occupation by the defendants thereafter was illegal. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to an order of eviction and costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' case proved; eviction order granted against defendants; plaintiffs awarded costs.
Orders
- An order of eviction is issued against the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, or any persons claiming through them from the premises known as Kitale Municipality Block 6/39.
- The plaintiffs shall have costs of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 153 OF 2014
SHAMSHAD AHMED MOHAMMED YAKUB)
FARHAN MOHAMED YUSUF)...............................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
RASHID KALUMA OKEDI)
JOSEPH K. NDUNGU).............................................................DEFENDANTS
J U D G M E N T
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1. The Plaintiffs are joint owners of LR Kitale Municipality Block 6/39 which comprises a business premises (Premises). The Plaintiff leased the premises to the defendants who have been carrying on business in the premises for the last six years.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. On 1/7/2014 the first plaintiff caused the two defendants to be served with a notice to terminate the tenancy. The notices weredated 1/7/2014 and were all served on 1/7/2014.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND THE LAW
3. The notices to terminate tenancy were served pursuant to the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (shops, Hotels and catering Establishments) Act Cap 301. The tenants were obliged to make a reference to the Tribunal established under the Act if they were opposed to the notice to terminate their tenancy. They did not file any reference. When they were served with summons in this case,they neither entered appearance nor filed defence. This suit therefore proceeded by way of formal proof.
4. The first plaintiff produced notice to terminate tenancy served upon the first defendant as exhibit 1(a). He also produced an affidavit of service on the same as exhibit 1(b). The first plaintiff too produced termination notice served upon the second defendant [exhibit 2(a)] and the affidavit of service [exhibit 2(b)]. The two notices took effect after two months from service that is on 1/9/2014. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act the defendants tenancy terminated on 1/9/2014 and any continued stay of the two defendants after 1/9/2014 is illegal. I find that the defendants were properly served with termination notices. They have no justification in remaining on the premises after they failed to do what was required of them under the Act.
DETERMINATION
5. The Plaintiffs have proved their case against the defendants to the required standards. An order of eviction is hereby issued against the defendants, their agents,servants, employees/or any persons claiming through them from the premises known as Kitale Municipality Block 6/39. The plaintiffs shall have costs of this suit.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 15th day of April, 2015.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the Presence of Mr Ingosi for Mr Onyancha for Plaintiff. Court Clerk – Kassachoon.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
15/4/2015