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

Supa Duka Nakuru Limited v Baringo United Limited [2018] KEELC 1595 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1595 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1595
Citation
[2018] KEELC 1595 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a decision of the Business Premises Rent TribunalCoramJUSTICE MUNYAO SILA
The rent assessment was improper and the court determined the rent payable at Kshs. 71/= per square foot for the main shop and half that rate for the other lettable space.

Facts

The appellant, Supa Duka Nakuru Limited, appealed against a decision of the Chairman of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal regarding the rent assessment for a ground floor premises in Kenya House, Nakuru Town. The appellant was aggrieved by the proposed rent increase by the landlord, Baringo United Limited.

Issues

  • The assessment of rent by the Chairman was improper
  • The rent assessment should be based on a differentiated rate for different parts of the let premises

Reasoning

The court held that the rent assessment was improper as it was based on an aggregate of two valuations without giving reasons. The court directed the valuers to revalue the premises and determine the lettable space, which was based on the space agreed by both parties.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed, and the rent payable was determined at Kshs. 78,029/= per month.

Orders

  • Rent payable is Kshs. 78,029/= per month
  • Rent remains effective for at least the next 5 years
  • The parties are advised to have a written contract on the rent payable and how it will be subject to increase

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • The Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, and Catering Establishments Act)
  • CAP 301, Laws of Kenya
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case