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

Mobil Energy Limited v Greenspan Mall Limited [2022] KEBPRT 131 (KLR)

[2022] KEBPRT 131 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
131
Citation
[2022] KEBPRT 131 (KLR)
Decided
8 January 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a final order of the Business Premises Rent TribunalCoramHON A. MUMA, VICE CHAIR
Holding

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is upheld, and the Tenant's reference and application are dismissed.

Facts

The Tenant, Mobil Energy Limited, entered into a lease agreement with the Landlord, Greenspan Mall Limited, for the suit premises. The Tenant moved the Tribunal seeking interim orders, while the Landlord filed a notice of preliminary objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter
  2. Whether the lease agreement is a controlled tenancy as per the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301

Reasoning

The court found that the lease agreement does not meet the requirements of a controlled tenancy as defined in the Act.

Outcome

The Landlord's notice of preliminary objection is upheld, and the Tenant's reference and application are dismissed.

Orders

  • The Landlord’s notice of preliminary objection dated 27th August 2021 is hereby upheld.
  • The Tenant’s reference and application dated 30th July 2021 be and are hereby dismissed.
  • The Landlord shall have costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301
Cases cited (1)
  • Al-Riaz International Limited v Ganjoni Properties Limited [2015] 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