[2024] KEBPRT 854 (KLR)

[2024] KEBPRT 854 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the notice to terminate tenancy issued by the 2nd respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements under Cap. 301, both in form and notice period. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent was not the authorized agent of the landlord and had no capacity to issue such notice....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEBPRT 854 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Wambui; Respondent: Anne Wambui Njoroge; Respondent: Aziel Capital Agency Limited
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E1275 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Reference and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Tenant's reference allowed; 2nd respondent restrained; 1st respondent's application dismissed; costs awarded against 2nd respondent.
Judges
Gakuhi Chege, J Osodo
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Agency Relationships, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Termination of Tenancy Agency Relationships Injunctive Relief

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

Parties

Lucy Wambui

Applicant

Anne Wambui Njoroge

Respondent

Aziel Capital Agency Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Reference / Ruling on Reference and Interlocutory Applications

  1. 1 Whether the tenant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the reference.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd respondent's notice to terminate tenancy dated 23rd November 2023 is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent's application dated 16th January 2024 ought to be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the notice to terminate tenancy issued by the 2nd respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements under Cap. 301, both in form and notice period. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent was not the authorized agent of the landlord and had no capacity to issue such notice. The 1st respondent's application to set aside ex-parte orders and for stay was dismissed as it lacked merit. The Tribunal held that the tenant was entitled to protection from unlawful eviction and interference, and ordered that rent be paid directly to the 1st respondent. Costs were awarded against the 2nd respondent for meddling without authority.

Court Disposition

Tenant's reference allowed; 2nd respondent restrained; 1st respondent's application dismissed; costs awarded against 2nd respondent.

Orders

  • The tenant's reference dated 19th December 2023 is allowed; the 2nd respondent is restrained from interfering with her occupation of the suit property.
  • The 1st respondent's application dated 16th January 2024 is dismissed for lack of merit.