Citadel Real Estates Limited v Mabeya & 4 others (Tribunal Case E793 of 2023) [2025] KEBPRT 244 (KLR) (Civ) (11 April 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 244
- Citation
- [2025] KEBPRT 244 (KLR)
- Decided
- 11 April 2025
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramP. Kitur
Holding
The Landlord's notice to terminate the tenancies was properly served, but the Landlord is ordered to release the tenants' goods and compensate them for unjustly holding their goods.
Facts
Citadel Real Estates Limited initiated proceedings against tenants for refusing to vacate the premises despite being served with legal notices to terminate their tenancies. The Landlord claims the notices were duly served.
Issues
- Whether the Landlord properly served the notice to terminate the tenancies.
- Whether the 1st and 3rd Tenants are liable for storage charges and whether adequate communication was made regarding these charges.
- Whether the Tenants are entitled to compensation for renovations and the Landlord's failure to release their goods.
Reasoning
The Landlord provided an affidavit of service, and the tenants disputed the validity of this service. The Landlord's notice was compliant with the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act.
Outcome
The Landlord's appeal is upheld.
Orders
- The Landlord shall immediately release the tenants' goods within 7 days.
- The claim for storage charges against the 1st and 3rd Tenants is dismissed.
- The Landlord shall compensate the 1st Tenant a total sum of Kshs. 600,000/=.
- The Landlord shall compensate the 3rd Tenant a total sum of Kshs. 124,000/=
- Costs are awarded to the 1st and 3rd Tenants assessed at Kshs. 60,000/=
Remedies
- Compensation for unjustly holding goods
- Release of goods within 7 days
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act
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…