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

Machua v Mungai (Tribunal Case 851 of 2020) [2022] KEBPRT 875 (KLR) (Civ) (7 October 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEBPRT 875 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
875
Citation
[2022] KEBPRT 875 (KLR)
Decided
7 October 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureTenant's application for restraining orders against landlord's notice to increase rent and evictCoramGAKUHI CHEGE, VICE CHAIR
Holding

The Tribunal found that the tenant did not erect structures on the suit premises and did not sublet to a third party. The landlord’s notice to increase rent was lawful, and the notice to terminate tenancy was upheld.

Facts

The tenant has constructed two semi-permanent houses on the plot without the landlord's knowledge and consent, subletting them to other tenants who pay rent to her. The landlord issued a verbal notice to increase rent from Kshs 45,000 to Kshs 70,000, and threatened to demolish the business premises and evict the tenant.

Issues

  1. Whether the tenant is guilty of erecting structures on the suit premises and subletting to a third party
  2. Whether the landlord’s notice to increase rent is lawful
  3. Whether the landlord’s notice to terminate tenancy ought to be upheld or dismissed
  4. Who is liable to pay costs

Reasoning

The Tribunal ruled that the tenant did not construct structures on the suit premises and did not sublet to a third party. The landlord’s notice to increase rent was lawful, and the notice to terminate tenancy was upheld.

Outcome

The application for restraining orders was dismissed.

Orders

  • The landlord’s notice to increase rent from Kshs 45,000 to Kshs 70,000 was found to be lawful.
  • The landlord’s notice to terminate tenancy was upheld.
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