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

Kanini v Musango & another (Tribunal Case E125 of 2024) [2024] KEBPRT 681 (KLR) (5 April 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEBPRT 681 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
681
Citation
[2024] KEBPRT 681 (KLR)
Decided
5 April 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureAppeal from an original trialCoramCYPRIAN MUGAMBI
Holding

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Tenant is not entitled to the orders sought in her applications.

Facts

The Tenant, Norah Kanini, filed two applications seeking injunctions and orders to allow her to continue her business and compensation for losses. The Respondent, Margaret Musango, served the Tenant with a notice to vacate the premises on or before January 31, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
  2. Whether the Tenant is entitled to the orders sought in her applications.

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the notice to vacate was defective as it gave the Tenant only 25 days to vacate the premises. The Tenant was in arrears of rent and had not approached the court with clean hands. The Tenant's prayer for compensation for lost business was not supported by evidence.

Outcome

The Tenant's application for injunction was dismissed. The Tenant was ordered to clear rent arrears or face eviction. The Tenant's prayer for compensation was dismissed.

Orders

  • Tenant's Application for injunction is dismissed.
  • Tenant will clear rent arrears or be evicted.
  • Tenant's prayer for compensation is dismissed.
  • Tenant is not to be evicted save under Section 4 of Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya.
  • Tenant will bear the costs of the Application.

Remedies

  • Compensation for rent arrears.
  • Eviction if rent arrears are not cleared.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • 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