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

Njeru v Karingithi (Tribunal Case E687 of 2022) [2023] KEBPRT 229 (KLR) (12 April 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEBPRT 229 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
229
Citation
[2023] KEBPRT 229 (KLR)
Decided
12 April 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureApplication for Invalidity of Notice and Rent IncreaseCoramHON A. MUMA, VICE CHAIR, BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
Holding

The tenant's notice of motion is allowed, the rent increment is reasonable, and the tenant is ordered to pay KShs. 17,000 monthly rent from May 1, 2023. The landlord is required to undertake repairs of the veranda and toilet within 30 days, and each party bears their costs.

Facts

The tenant and landlord entered into a tenancy agreement on August 7, 2020, over land with reference number DAG/Riruta/2748. The landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on July 5, 2022, and increased the rent from KShs. 15,000 to KShs. 17,000. The tenant sought to invalidate the notice and rent increase.

Issues

  1. Validity of landlord's notice to terminate tenancy
  2. Reasonableness of rent increase
  3. Responsibility for repairs

Reasoning

The notice to terminate the tenancy was issued within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form. The rent increase was reasonable and within market rates. The landlord's notice lacked merit due to the lack of substantive grounds for eviction.

Outcome

Tenant's application allowed

Orders

  • Tenant to pay KShs. 17,000 monthly rent from May 1, 2023
  • Landlord to undertake repairs of veranda and toilet within 30 days
  • Each party to bear their costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) (Tribunal) (Forms and Procedure) Regulations, 1966
  • Landlord and Tenant Act, 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