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

Jairus Muendo & another v Kathumo Holdings Ltd & another [2021] KEBPRT 408 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 408 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
408
Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 408 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureApplication for intervention by the Tribunal to determine the legality of attachment of goods and threat of evictionCoramHON A. MUMA, VICE CHAIR, BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
Holding

The Tribunal finds that the Lease Agreement has not been produced before the Tribunal, making it difficult to ascertain any alleged breaches. The Applicants are in breach of their obligation to pay rent as and when it falls due. The manner in which the Respondents levied distress for rent and attached the Applicants' property is found to be legal.

Facts

The Applicants are tenants occupying the Suit Premises, and the Landlord (1st Respondent) issued a termination notice to the Applicants on 1st February 2020. The 1st Respondent subsequently instructed the 2nd Respondent to levy distress for rent, and the Applicants were found in arrears of Kshs. 400,000 as of March 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought
  2. The legality of the manner in which the Respondents levied distress for rent and attached the Applicants' property

Reasoning

The Tribunal notes that the Lease Agreement has not been produced and thus cannot pronounce on any alleged breaches. The Tribunal finds the Applicants in arrears and legal for the Respondents to levy distress for rent.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismisses the application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Distress for Rent Act, Cap 293 Laws of Kenya
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case