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

Juma v Shah (Tribunal Case E105 of 2024) [2024] KEBPRT 1869 (KLR) (Civ) (31 December 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEBPRT 1869 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
1869
Citation
[2024] KEBPRT 1869 (KLR)
Decided
31 December 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a preliminary objection to a tenant's application for an injunctionCoramP. Kitur
Holding

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is upheld, and the tenant's application for an injunction is allowed.

Facts

The tenant, Juma Ali Mohamed Juma, operates a yard on the suit premises, which is owned by the landlord, Kanchan Jayendra Raichand Shah. The tenant filed an application for an injunction to prevent eviction, and the landlord filed a preliminary objection arguing lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter
  2. Whether there exists a Landlord-Tenant relationship
  3. Whether the Tenants Reference and Application are merited

Reasoning

The Tribunal determined that the suit premises, being a yard, qualifies as a 'shop' under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, Catering Establishments) Act, thus granting jurisdiction.

Outcome

The tenant's application for an injunction is allowed, and the landlord is ordered to pay the tenant's costs.

Orders

  • Tenant remains in the premises and continues paying monthly rent
  • Landlord is at liberty to issue any notice after 12 months
  • Costs awarded to the tenant assessed at Kshs. 60,000/= deductible from monthly rent
  • Complaint marked as settled in the above terms
  • File marked closed

Remedies

  • Continued tenancy
  • Monthly rent payment
  • Notice issuance after 12 months
  • Costs awarded to tenant

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, Catering Establishments) 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