Barack v Oyugi (Tribunal Case E004 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 231 (KLR) (9 April 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 231
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 231 (KLR)
- Decided
- 9 April 2025
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunal CasePostureTenant's Application for Interim InjunctionCoramHON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS, - PANEL CHAIRPERSON, HON. JOYCE MURIGI, - MEMBER
Holding
The court found that the Tenant has shown a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the grant of the interim orders of injunction.
Facts
The Tenant, Eunice Awuor Barack, sought an interim injunction to restrain the Landlord, Jared Oyugi, from interfering with her quiet possession of the demised premises. The Landlord had purported to alter the terms of the tenancy, refused to reconcile rental accounts, and threatened eviction.
Issues
- Whether the Landlord's notice of termination dated 11.10.2024 is lawful.
- Whether the Tenant's Application has merit.
- Who should bear the costs of the Application.
Reasoning
The court ruled in favor of the Tenant, declaring the Landlord's notice unlawful and granting an interim injunction for the Tenant's quiet possession of the demised premises.
Outcome
The Tenant's Application is allowed.
Orders
- Tenant's complete quiet possession of the demised premises.
- Declaration of the notice of termination/eviction dated 11.10.2024 as unlawful and of no effect.
- Costs to abide the outcome of the Reference.
Remedies
- Interim injunction for the Tenant's quiet possession of the demised premises.
- Declaration of the notice as unlawful and of no effect.
Authorities cited
Legislation (3)
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (2)
- Waithaka vs Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation [2001] eKLR
- Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] EA 358
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…