SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Joseph Ndichu Ngige v Christopher Were Barasa & another [2021] KEBPRT 333 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 333 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
333
Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 333 (KLR)
Decided
6 September 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeBusiness Premises Rent TribunalPostureApplication for review and stay of executionCoramHON. P. MAY, G.E.O Oluoch, MS Rotich
Holding

The application for review does not have merit, and the applicant is not granted a stay of execution pending the appeal.

Facts

The landlord filed a reference on September 28, 2015, and the Tribunal allowed it, granting the landlord the right to levy distress and costs. The tenant claims he was not notified of the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review has merit?
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal?

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the application is an attempt to appeal a decided matter and that the disputed land ownership issues should be handled in the Environment and Land Court. The court denied the stay of execution as the applicant failed to prove irreparable damage and the landlord has a right to earn from the premises.

Outcome

The applicant is ordered to pay the outstanding rent arrears within 14 days, and the landlord is awarded the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The applicant to pay the outstanding rent arrears within 14 days.
  • The landlord is awarded the costs of the application.

Remedies

  • Payment of rent arrears
  • Award of costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Cap 301
  • Order 22 Rule 25
  • Section 13 of Cap 301
Cases cited (2)
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417
  • Julius Mogaka Gekonde t/a E-Smart Technical College .vs. Ouru Power Limited & another [2016] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case