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

Alfonce Bwire v Gabriel Otuchi [2021] KEBPRT 77 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 77 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
77
Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 77 (KLR)
Decided
30 December 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeBusiness Premises Rent TribunalPostureAppeal from a decision to terminate tenancyCoramHON. GAKUHI CHEGE, VICE CHAIR, BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
Holding

The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is upheld, and the tenant is ordered to vacate the premises by January 31, 2022, with costs assessed against the tenant.

Facts

The landlord sought to terminate the tenant's tenancy to carry out major renovations due to an anthill issue, while the tenant claimed no alternative site for his business.

Issues

  1. Whether to uphold the landlord's notice to terminate tenancy
  2. Who is liable to pay costs

Reasoning

The landlord demonstrated a genuine intention to undertake renovations, and the tenant confirmed the presence of an anthill. The tenant's inability to provide an alternative site for his business was noted.

Outcome

The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is upheld.

Orders

  • The landlord's notice of termination of tenancy dated 6th August 2021 is hereby upheld.
  • The tenant shall vacate from the suit premises to give way for the intended renovations on or before 31st January 2022.
  • The OCS, Ogalo Police Station to provide security during enforcement of the eviction order.
  • Costs to the landlord assessed at Kshs.10,000/- against the tenant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (1)
  • Auto Engineering Ltd -vs- M. Gonella & Co. Ltd (1998) 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