Kyeva v Thairu & another (Tribunal Case E210 of 2022) [2023] KEBPRT 203 (KLR) (11 April 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 203
- Citation
- [2023] KEBPRT 203 (KLR)
- Decided
- 11 April 2023
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureApplication for restraining orders and orders to reconnect electric powerCoramA. Muma, Vice Chair
Holding
The application is dismissed with costs as the tenant did not prove their case on a balance of probability
Facts
The tenant, Naomi Kyeva, claimed that the landlords, Percy Thairu and Sophie Wanjiru Thairu, illegally attached her goods and threatened to evict her from the premises due to unpaid rent. The tenant admitted to accruing rent arrears for 8 months, but claimed she was unable to pay due to her husband's illness.
Issues
- Whether the tenant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- The legality of the manner in which the landlords levied distress for rent
Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the tenant admitted to accruing rent arrears and was in breach of her obligation to pay rent as and when it fell due. The right to levy distress for rent is provided for under CAP 301 and must be sanctioned by the Tribunal.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Tenant to pay outstanding rent of Ksh. 14,000 pm from May 2022 to date
- Tenant to continue paying Ksh. 14,000/- every month
- Tenant to complete ongoing renovations within 30 days
- Each party to bear their own costs
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- 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.
Loading judgment…