Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Oloo & another v Mwinyi (Tribunal Case E322 of 2022) [2023] KEBPRT 33 (KLR) (2 February 2023) (Ruling)

Oloo & another v Mwinyi (Tribunal Case E322 of 2022) [2023] KEBPRT 33 (KLR) (2 February 2023) (Ruling)
Citation
Oloo & another v Mwinyi [2023] KEBPRT 33 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2023] KEBPRT 33 (KLR)
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Outcome
Dismissed
Case number
Tribunal Case E322 of 2022
Judges
Gakuhi Chege
Judgment date
2 February 2023
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (18.1 KB)
Collections
Date published
07 August 2023
Case action
Ruling
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
In the premises, the application dated September 23, 2022 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Skip to document content
1.The Tenant/Applicant herein has moved this Tribunal by a motion dated September 23, 2022 in which he is seeking that the Tribunal be pleased to stay, review and/or suspend the enforcement and/or execution of the ruling delivered on September 21, 2022 and all consequential process as arising therefrom.
2.According to the Applicant, this Tribunal’s ruling of September 21, 2022 aggrieved him as the same did not address or overlooked two issues given that the suit premises was a temporary structure built on a road reserve and vacant possession could not issue as the only notice served by the landlord was one dated July 6, 2021 which was not in the prescribed form.
3.The Applicant contends that he was not a tenant to the landlord herein as there was no proof of payment of rent since the Landlord changed sold and surrendered the suit premises to the Applicant’s wife one Chebet Yasmin in October 2021 and could not be paid rent thereafter.
4.Although I have not seen the replying affidavit or any other response to the application before me, I am nevertheless required to exercise my discretion judicially and not capriciously taking into consideration the principles considered in an application for review of court orders.
5.In the case of National Bank of Kenya Limited vs Ndungu Njau (1997) eKLR, the Court of Appeal had the following to state:-“A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review”.
6.All issues raised in the applicant’s motion were addressed in the ruling of September 21, 2022 and cannot be grounds for review as entertaining them would amount to sitting on appeal against my own decision. This is against the spirit of review espoused in the foregoing court of appeal decision which is binding upon this Tribunal. I refuse the invitation to sit on appeal against my own decision.
7.In the premises, the application dated September 23, 2022 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED & VIRTUALLY DELIVERED THIS 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.HON. GAKUHI CHEGEVICE CHAIRBusiness Premises Rent TribunalRuling delivered in the presence of:Tenant present through wife Yasmin Chebet.No appearance for the Landlord.
▲ To the top

Cited documents 1

Judgment 1
1. KENYA NATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION vs JOHN NDUNGU NJAU [1997] KECA 151 (KLR) Explained 7 citations

Documents citing this one 0