[2025] KEBPRT 234 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 234 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the respondent, without issuing the statutory notice required under Cap 301, unlawfully broke into the applicant's premises and removed her goods. The respondent's actions amounted to an illegal attempt to terminate or alter the tenancy. The respondent failed to justify the removal of the applicant's goods, as there was no evidence of lawful distress or proper notice for renovations. The tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for stolen money and business losses due to lack of evidence but held that the applicant was entitled to reinstatement, return of goods, and protection from further interference. The respondent was ordered to reopen the premises, return the...

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 234 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lilian Wanjiru; Respondent: Virginia Njoroge
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E010 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed in part; applicant reinstated and goods to be returned; monetary claims dismissed.
Judges
CN Mugambi
Legal Topics
Controlled Tenancy, Illegal Eviction, Statutory Notice Requirements, Removal of Goods, Tenant Reinstatement
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Controlled Tenancy Illegal Eviction Statutory Notice Requirements Removal of Goods Tenant Reinstatement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lilian Wanjiru

Applicant

Virginia Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully locked the applicant out of the suit premises and removed her goods.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was required to issue a statutory notice before interfering with the applicant's tenancy.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement, return of goods, compensation, and injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent, without issuing the statutory notice required under Cap 301, unlawfully broke into the applicant's premises and removed her goods. The respondent's actions amounted to an illegal attempt to terminate or alter the tenancy. The respondent failed to justify the removal of the applicant's goods, as there was no evidence of lawful distress or proper notice for renovations. The tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for stolen money and business losses due to lack of evidence but held that the applicant was entitled to reinstatement, return of goods, and protection from further interference. The respondent was ordered to reopen the premises, return the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; applicant reinstated and goods to be returned; monetary claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to reopen the suit premises forthwith and reinstate the applicant unconditionally.
  • The respondent is ordered to return all the applicant's goods/tools of trade to the suit premises at the landlord's expense.