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

Mukite v Ndiema (Tribunal Case E050 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 365 (KLR) (8 August 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEBPRT 365 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
365
Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 365 (KLR)
Decided
8 August 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEvictionPostureAppeal from a previous eviction orderCoramHON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO, HON GAKUHI CHEGE
Holding

The notice to terminate tenancy is declared invalid and the eviction application is dismissed. The landlord is ordered to issue a fresh notice to terminate tenancy and is restrained from interfering with the tenant's occupation.

Facts

The landlord filed a reference under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap 301, alleging that the tenant had failed to pay rent and violated the tenancy agreement. The tenant opposed the eviction, claiming he had invested in renovations and was not in arrears.

Issues

  1. Validity of the notice to terminate tenancy
  2. Dismissal of the eviction application
  3. Reinstatement of the tenant's quiet and peaceful occupation

Reasoning

The Tribunal found the notice to be invalid due to the tenant's lack of arrears and the landlord's failure to justify the eviction.

Outcome

Dismissal of the eviction application and invalidation of the notice to terminate tenancy

Orders

  • Invalidation of the notice to terminate tenancy
  • Dismissal of the eviction application
  • Reinstatement of the tenant's quiet and peaceful occupation
  • Restraint on landlord's interference
  • Costs to the tenant
  • Settlement of reference

Remedies

  • Reinstatement of tenant's quiet and peaceful occupation
  • Restraint on landlord's interference
  • Settlement of reference

Authorities cited

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