Mwaro v Gongolo (Tribunal Case E106 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 1337 (KLR) (14 March 2024) (Judgment)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 1337
- Citation
- [2024] KEBPRT 1337 (KLR)
- Decided
- 14 March 2024
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureLandlord's ReferenceCoramHON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS
Holding
The court ruled that the tenant owes the landlord Kshs.306,000 in rent arrears, the landlord's termination notices were unlawful, and each party bears their own costs.
Facts
The landlord, Mwaro, claimed the tenant, Gongolo, owed rent of Kshs.300,000 in arrears since January 2019. The landlord also alleged that the tenant had received termination notices dated 8th March 2022 and 21st April 2023.
Issues
- Whether the tenant owes the landlord Kshs.300,000 in rent arrears.
- Whether the landlord's termination notices dated 8th March 2022 and 21st April 2023 are lawful.
- Who should bear the costs of the suit.
Reasoning
The court found the tenant in arrears of Kshs.378,000 but awarded Kshs.300,000 as claimed. The termination notices were not in the prescribed form and lacked the required elements.
Outcome
The landlord's claim for rent arrears is allowed at Kshs.306,000, and the termination notices are declared unlawful.
Orders
- The landlord is allowed to claim Kshs.306,000 in rent arrears.
- The landlord's termination notices are declared unlawful.
- The landlord is allowed to issue a termination notice in compliance with the law.
- Each party bears their own costs.
Remedies
- The landlord is allowed to execute distress in recovery of the Kshs.306,000 in rent arrears.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act) Cap. 301
- Regulations to the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act) Cap. 301
Cases cited (1)
- Narshidas & Co. Ltd v Nyali Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Services Ltd Civil Apeal No. 205 of 1993
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…