[2025] KEBPRT 161 (KLR)
The tribunal held that the applicant's notice of motion application was fatally defective as it was not preceded by a reference or complaint as required by the Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act and its regulations. The law prescribes that all proceedings before the tribunal must be commenced by way of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dennis Kariithi Wilfred; Respondent: Beatrice Mumbi Gitau
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E1267 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/striking Out Application
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs to the landlord
- Judges
- N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
- Legal Topics
- Commencement of Suits, Controlled Tenancy, Procedure for Filing, Striking Out Applications
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dennis Kariithi Wilfred
Applicant
Beatrice Mumbi Gitau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/striking Out Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of motion application was properly before the tribunal as an originating process.
- 2 Whether the failure to commence proceedings by reference under the Act renders the application incompetent.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the landlord upon striking out the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal held that the applicant's notice of motion application was fatally defective as it was not preceded by a reference or complaint as required by the Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act and its regulations. The law prescribes that all proceedings before the tribunal must be commenced by way of a reference under section 6(1) or 12(4) of the Act, using the prescribed forms. A notice of motion is not a recognized originating process and can only be filed within a properly instituted suit. The applicant's failure to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements rendered the application incompetent and liable to be struck out. The tribunal relied on both statutory...
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs to the landlord
Orders
- The notice of motion application dated 18/11/2024 is struck out together with all subsequent orders issued thereof.
- The tenant shall pay to the landlady costs assessed at Kshs 10,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Wilfred v Gitau (Tribunal Case E1267 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 161 (KLR) (14 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 161 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E1267 of 2024
N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member
March 14, 2025
Between
Dennis Kariithi Wilfred
Tenant
and
Beatrice Mumbi Gitau
Landlord
Ruling
1. This Ruling is on the Tenant /Applicant notice of motion application dated 18/11. 2024. We however note that suits before this court are commenced by either through a complaint/reference under section 12(4) of (Shops, Hotels and Catering establishments) Act (Cap 301) hereinafter referred to as “the Act” or by way of a reference under section 6 of the said Act.
2. Section 12(4) of the Act provides that;-“In addition to any other powers specifically conferred on it by or under this Act, a Tribunal may investigate any complaint relating to a controlled tenancy made to it by the landlord or the Tenant, and may make such order thereon as it deems fit”
3. Section 6(1) of the Act on the other hand provides that;-“(1)A receiving party who wishes to oppose a tenancy notice and who has notified the requesting party under section 4(5) of the 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 provided that a Tribunal may for sufficient reason and on such conditions as it may think fit , permit such a reference notwithstanding that the receiving party has not complied with any of the requirements of this section(2)A Tribunal to which a reference is made shall, within seven days after the receipt thereof, give notice of such reference to the requesting party concerned”
4. We further take cognisance of Regulation 5 of the Regulations to the Act which provides that;“Reference to the Tribunal under section 6(1) or section 12(4) of the Act shall be in forms (B) and (C) in the schedule of these Regulations”
5. From the record, it is plain clear that there is no foundation laid in this claim on which the notice of motion Application dated 18/11/2024 could stand. It then follows that the said motion is for striking out as it lacks any legitimacy to remain in this court’s records.
6. In this, we find reliance on Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 which provides that;-“Every suit shall be instituted by way of plaint or in in such manner as may be prescribed. As a general rule, a suit can only be instituted by way of a plaint, petition or an originating summons.”
5. This court, the Act and the regulations thereof are categorical and have prescribed that any and every suit must be commenced by way of a reference under either Section 6(1) or 12(4) of the Act and Regulation 5 of the Regulations to the Act has indeed provided the template for such filing. These otherwise mandatory requirements were never complied with by the Tenant in approaching this court.
6. In the case of; Photo Energy Limited -Vs- Hashi Energy Ltd Misc 180 of 2018, the court stated as follows;-“Order 3 Rule (i) and (II) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that every suit shall be instituted by way of a plaint. As a general Rule, a suit can only be instituted by way of a plaint, petition or originating summons. A notice of motion is not legally recognised as an originating process. A notice of motion can only be filed within a properly instituted suit. The Applicants failed to file any originating process in this matter. We find that the attempt to institute this suit by way of a notice of motion renders the entire suit defective”
5. In view of all the above, we would strike out the notice of motion Application dated 18/11/2024 and all subsequent orders issued thereof.
6. We would also abide by the conventional wisdom of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and award costs to the landlady.
7. In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following;-a.That the Notice of motion application dated 18/11/2024 is struck out together with all subsequent orders issued thereofb.That the Tenant shall pay to the landlady costs assessed at Kshs 10,000/=Those are the orders of the court.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)HON. JOYCE MURIGI - (MEMBER)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALIn the presence of:M/S Mbira for the Applicant/TenantMr. Gitahi for the Landlord/Respondents