Bunuke v Investments & another (Tribunal Case E023 of 2022) [2022] KEBPRT 132 (KLR) (Civ) (10 June 2022) (Ruling)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 132
- Citation
- [2022] KEBPRT 132 (KLR)
- Decided
- 10 June 2022
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureTenant's Motion for Injunction vs Landlord's Application for PossessionCoramGAKUHI CHEGE, VICE CHAIR
Holding
The landlord's application is allowed, and the interim injunction is discharged.
Facts
The tenant was in arrears of Kshs.39,000 due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy and instructed the 2nd Respondent to levy distress for Kshs.43,000 in rent arrears. The tenant filed a complaint and motion for interim injunction.
Issues
- Whether the landlord's application for possession is valid
- Whether the interim injunction granted should be discharged
Reasoning
The tenant was in arrears due to the pandemic, and despite explaining his predicament, the landlord insisted on eviction. The tenant was a habitual rent defaulter.
Outcome
The landlord's application is allowed, and the interim injunction is discharged.
Orders
- The landlord’s application dated 14th February 2022 is allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 3 thereof with costs.
- The interim orders given on 1st February 2022 in favour of the tenant are discharged/vacated forthwith.
- The tenant shall pay all the rent in arrears and the landlord is authorized to use lawful means to recover the same.
- The Respondent’s costs are assessed at Kshs.25,000/- against the tenant.
Remedies
- Discharge of interim injunction
- Payment of rent in arrears
- Landlord's authorization to recover rent
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.
Loading judgment…