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

Kamulu v Pere & another (Tribunal Case 38 of 2017) [2023] KEBPRT 1195 (KLR) (26 May 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEBPRT 1195 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
1195
Citation
[2023] KEBPRT 1195 (KLR)
Decided
26 May 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Business Premises Rent TribunalCoramCYPRIAN MUGAMBI
Holding

The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy dated 24.4.2017 is of no effect.

Facts

The tenant, Janet Kamulu, occupied the premises since 2007 under an agreement with the landlord, Anthony Pere. The landlord, Vital Properties (K) Limited, issued a notice to terminate tenancy on April 24, 2017, citing the need to use the shop. The tenant filed a reference to the tribunal, and the matter proceeded for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of termination of tenancy issued by the landlord is valid
  2. Whether the landlord has established the grounds for termination
  3. Whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for renovation costs

Reasoning

The lease agreement was in existence, and the landlord's notice was issued before the lease expired. The tenant's continued occupation after the lease expired turned the tenancy into a controlled tenancy.

Outcome

The landlord's notice is dismissed, and the tenant's claim for compensation is dismissed.

Orders

  • The landlord's notice to terminate tenancy dated 24.4.2017 is of no effect.
  • The tenant's claim for Kshs. 40,500/= against the landlord is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Act 2012
  • Cap 301
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