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

City Hub Electronics Limited v JAD Agencies (Tribunal Case E1013 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 181 (KLR) (15 January 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEBPRT 181 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
181
Citation
[2024] KEBPRT 181 (KLR)
Decided
15 January 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramN WAHOME
Holding

The landlord's notice of termination is found to be unlawful.

Facts

The landlord, City Hub Electronics Limited, filed a reference under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (shops, Hotels and catering establishments) Act, Cap 301, seeking rent arrears, surrender of vacant possession, and enforcement by the OCS Central police station. The tenant, JAD Agencies, denied breaching the tenancy agreement and claimed the landlord's notice of termination was unlawful.

Issues

  1. Whether the landlord’s notice of termination is lawful
  2. How much in rent arrears is owed to the landlord by the tenant and whether levy of distress should be allowed
  3. Who should bear the costs of the suit

Reasoning

The notice of termination must include the grounds for seeking such termination, as per Section 7(1)(9) of the Act. The prescribed form for such notice is Form A, as provided by Regulation 4(1) of the Act. The letter by the landlord's advocate dated 4.1.2023 is not a notice of termination.

Outcome

The landlord's notice of termination is found to be unlawful.

Orders

  • The landlord's notice of termination is found to be unlawful.
  • The landlord's request for levy of distress on rent arrears is dismissed.
  • The landlord's request for surrender of vacant possession is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (shops, Hotels and catering establishments) Act Cap 301 of the 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