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

Thuo v Ndungu (Tribunal Case 16 of 2019) [2022] KEBPRT 834 (KLR) (2 November 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEBPRT 834 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
834
Citation
[2022] KEBPRT 834 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureRespondent's AppealCoramGAKUHI CHEGE, Wacheke Thindugua
Holding

The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is declared to be of no effect and is dismissed with costs.

Facts

The tenant, John Macharia Thuo, had been occupying a business premises at Methi Shopping Centre, Kabati since August 2015, paying monthly rent of Kshs 5,000. He had invested Kshs 58,000 in the premises and built an extension. The landlord, George Njunge Ndungu, served a tenancy notice seeking to terminate the tenancy due to renovation plans, but the tenant opposed the notice, alleging discrimination and illegal operation of a hotel business.

Issues

  1. Whether the landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is valid
  2. Whether the tenant has invested Kshs 58,000 in the premises

Reasoning

The tenant has been in occupation of the premises since August 2015 and has invested Kshs 58,000 in the premises. The landlord's notice was found to be invalid due to the tenant's investment and the discriminatory selection of the tenant for renovation.

Outcome

The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy is declared to be of no effect and is dismissed with costs.
  • The tenant's costs of the reference are assessed at Kshs 20,000/- against the landlord all inclusive.
  • The said costs shall be offset against the rent account if not paid within thirty (30) days hereof.

Remedies

  • Costs awarded to the tenant
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