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

Njau v Wamae (Tribunal Case E732 of 2021) [2023] KEBPRT 31 (KLR) (Civ) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEBPRT 31 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
31
Citation
[2023] KEBPRT 31 (KLR)
Decided
17 February 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEviction CasePostureTenant's Application for Protection Against Eviction vs Landlord's Application for EvictionCoramGAKUHI CHEGE, VICE CHAIR
Holding

The tenant's application and complaint are dismissed, and the landlord's application is allowed. The tenant is ordered to vacate the premises and pay Kshs.50,000 in costs.

Facts

The tenant, Jidraph Muigai Njau, filed a complaint and motion for restraining orders against the landlord, Samuel Maina Wamae, alleging unlawful eviction threats. The suit premises is a bar, butchery, car wash, garage, and Wines & Spirits business. The landlord, Samuel Maina Wamae, issued illegal notices to vacate the premises.

Issues

  1. Whether the landlord's eviction threats are unlawful.
  2. Whether the tenant's possession and quiet enjoyment of the premises are protected.

Reasoning

The landlord's actions are found to be illegal and in breach of the lease agreement, which prohibits the tenant from transferring, letting, mortgaging, or parting with possession of the premises without consent.

Outcome

Tenant's application dismissed, landlord's application allowed.

Orders

  • Tenant's application and complaint dismissed.
  • Tenant ordered to vacate the premises.
  • Tenant to pay Kshs.50,000 in costs and mesne profits.

Remedies

  • Eviction of the tenant from the premises.
  • Payment of costs and mesne profits.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya
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