Tailor v Ambundo [2025] KEBPRT 324 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 324 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Panel
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Case number
- Tribunal Case E020 of 2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Panel
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Case number
- Tribunal Case E020 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 preliminary objection did not raise any pure point of law as required by the Mukisa Biscuits case. The tribunal held that there is no statutory requirement under Cap. 301 for a landlord's notice of termination to be filed at the tribunal or to be allocated a reference number. The notice issued by the landlord was found to be compliant with the relevant statutory provisions and regulations. The respondent failed to demonstrate any breach of law or to provide evidence that the tenancy relationship did not fall within the definition of controlled tenancy under the Act. Consequently, the preliminary objection was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the landlord.
Court disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the landlord
Orders
- The notice of preliminary objection dated 4/3/2025 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the landlord.
02
Material facts
Parties
Anilo Tailor
ApplicantJohn Brian Ambundo
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application based on the alleged defective notice of termination of tenancy.
- 02
Whether the notice of termination of tenancy required filing at the tribunal and allocation of a reference number under Cap. 301.
- 03
Whether the notice of preliminary objection raises a pure point of law sufficient to dispose of the suit.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The landlord, through a replying affidavit and submissions, argued that the notice of termination dated 25/11/2024 was compliant with the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301) and relevant regulations. The landlord contended that there is no legal requirement for such a notice to be filed at the tribunal or to be allocated a reference number. The landlord maintained that the preliminary objection did not raise any valid point of law and that the tenancy relationship falls within the definition of controlled tenancy under the Act.
- Respondent
- The tenant/respondent argued that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application because the notice of termination of tenancy was defective, not filed at the tribunal, and lacked a reference number. The respondent asserted that the application was bad in law and legally untenable, raising these points as a preliminary objection.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law which, if successful, may dispose of the suit.
- 02
Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301), Section 4(2), Section 4(4), Section 6, Section 7(1), Regulation 4(1)
There is no requirement under Cap. 301 for a landlord's notice of termination to be filed at the tribunal or allocated a reference number.
- 03
Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301), Section 2(1)
A controlled tenancy is defined as a tenancy not reduced into writing, for a period not exceeding five years, or containing provision for termination otherwise than for breach within five years.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The tribunal found that the preliminary objection did not raise any pure point of law as required by the Mukisa Biscuits case. The tribunal held that there is no statutory requirement under Cap. 301 for a landlord's notice of termination to be filed at the tribunal or to be allocated a reference number. The notice issued by the landlord was found to be compliant with the relevant statutory provisions and regulations. The respondent failed to demonstrate any breach of law or to provide evidence that the tenancy relationship did not fall within the definition of controlled tenancy under the Act. Consequently, the preliminary objection was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the landlord.
Obiter and limits
- The tribunal emphasized that parties raising preliminary objections must ensure that such objections are based on clear points of law capable of disposing of the suit.
- The tribunal noted that compliance with statutory requirements is essential, but parties should not invent procedural hurdles not found in the law.
Court disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the landlord
- The notice of preliminary objection dated 4/3/2025 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the landlord.
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
Tailor v Ambundo (Tribunal Case E020 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 324 (KLR) (19 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 324 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E020 of 2025
N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member
June 19, 2025
Between
Anilo Tailor
Applicant
and
John Brian Ambundo
Respondent
Ruling
1. This Ruling is on the Tenant/Respondents notice of preliminary objection dated 4th March 2025. The same is on the grounds that:-i.The Honourable court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the Application dated the 17th February 2025 the same having been pegged on a defective notice of termination of Tenancy dated 25/11/2024. ii.That the notice of termination of tenancy dated 25/11/2024 was not filed at the Tribunal, lacks a reference number and therefore defective and illegal.iii.That the application is bad in law and legally untenable.
2. In response to the notice of preliminary objection, the landlord filed the Replying Affidavit sworn by George Nyambane on the 28/3/2025 and eventually the submissions dated 25/5/2025. On his part the Tenant also filed the submissions dated 8/5/2025.
3. We have perused the said notice of preliminary objection dated 4/3/2025 and the parties respective submissions and we are at pains to identify any issue or issues of law raised in the said notice that meets the threshold of such notice as envisaged in the case of Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd -vs- West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA where Law J.A held that:-“A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court or a plea of limitations or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration”.
4. In our view, the notice of termination by the landlord and dated 25/11/2025 did not require to be filed at the Tribunal nor to be allocated a reference. There is no such requirement under the landlord and Tenant (shops, Hotels and catering Establishments) Act (Cap.301).
5. Indeed Section 6 of the Act requires the Tenant to move the court appropriately on being served with a tenancy notice. The same provides that:-“A receiving party who wishes to oppose a Tenancy notice, and who has notified the requesting party under Section 4(5) of this Act that he does not agree to comply with the Tenancy notice, may before the date upon which such notice is to take effect, refer the matter to a Tribunal, whereupon such notice shall be of no effect until and subject to the determination of the reference by the Tribunal”.
6. The Tenant has not cited nor provided the Section of the law that has been breached by the landlord in issuing the tenancy notice dated 25/11/2025. In our view, the said notice is compliant with Section 4(2) of the Act and Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations to the Act and further It is in adherence to the requirements of Section 4(4) and 7 (1) of Cap. 301.
7. The Tenant has also in raising the question of jurisdiction not availed any materials before this court to show that the relationship between the parties was not as envisaged under Section 2(1) of the Act. The same provides that:-“Controlled tenancy means a tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment-a.Which has not been reduced into writing and which-i.Is for a period not exceeding five years, orii.Contains, provision for termination, otherwise than for breach of covenant, within five years from the commencement thereof”.
8. We therefore do not find any merit in the notice of preliminary objection dated 4/3/2025 and proceed to dismiss the same with costs to the landlord.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS - CHAIRPERSONHON. JOYCE MURIGI - MEMBERBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
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.