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

Hussein v Okinda; Ochuodho (Interested Party) (Tribunal Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 274 (KLR) (Civ) (25 April 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEBPRT 274 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
274
Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 274 (KLR)
Decided
25 April 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeBusiness Premises Rent DisputePostureApplication for Prohibition of Eviction and Other ReliefCoramCN MUGAMBI
Holding

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The tenant, Hussein, is the rightful tenant of the property.

Facts

The tenant, Hussein, entered into a lease agreement with the landlord, Okinda, for Plot No. 22B Bondo town. The landlord received rent from Hussein without informing him that the premises were already occupied. The tenant took possession of the premises in June 2024, but the landlord served a notice to vacate in late September 2024, which the tenant contested as illegal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the landlord and tenant.
  2. Who between the tenant and the landlord is the rightful tenant of the property.

Reasoning

The tenancy agreement is a controlled tenancy, and the tenant took possession before the landlord could terminate the lease. The landlord's notice to vacate was illegal.

Outcome

The application for prohibition of eviction and other relief is dismissed.

Orders

  • The Interested Party's application to be made a party to the suit is allowed.
  • The orders of 22.8.2024 issued by the Tribunal are set aside.
  • The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the 1st Respondent's Reference and Application dated 12.8.2024.
  • The OCS, Bondo Police Station is not required to assist in the implementation of the orders sought.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya (Landlord and Tenant 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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case