[2025] KEBPRT 173 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 173 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement relied upon by the respondent was between the applicant and a third party, not the respondent, and that the relationship between the third party and the respondent was unclear and would require evidence to establish. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant disputed the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 173 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Wakonyo Wamaitha; Respondent: Zorea Real Estate Agencies; Respondent: Pyramid Auctioneers
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E657 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
CN Mugambi
Legal Topics
Business Premises Rent Tribunal Jurisdiction, Lease Agreements, Preliminary Objection, Landlord Tenant Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Business Premises Rent Tribunal Jurisdiction Lease Agreements Preliminary Objection Landlord Tenant Disputes

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Wakonyo Wamaitha

Applicant

Zorea Real Estate Agencies

Respondent

Pyramid Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Cap 301 to hear and determine the suit given the lease term.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement annexed by the respondent is binding on the parties to this suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the lease agreement relied upon by the respondent was between the applicant and a third party, not the respondent, and that the relationship between the third party and the respondent was unclear and would require evidence to establish. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant disputed the existence of the 2022 lease agreement and claimed not to have been furnished with a copy. As the determination of the Tribunal's jurisdiction would require the resolution of disputed facts and evidence, the preliminary objection could not be sustained as a pure point of law. Accordingly, the preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of Preliminary Objection dated 13.11.2024 is dismissed with costs to the Tenant.