Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Larseng Contractors & Developers v Brookfield Limited & another (Tribunal Case E497 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 347 (KLR) (1 July 2025) (Ruling)

Larseng Contractors & Developers v Brookfield Limited & another (Tribunal Case E497 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 347 (KLR) (1 July 2025) (Ruling)
Citation
Larseng Contractors & Developers v Brookfield Limited & another [2025] KEBPRT 347 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 347 (KLR)
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Outcome
Struck out
Case number
Tribunal Case E497 of 2025
Judges
CN Mugambi
Judgment date
1 July 2025
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (14.5 KB)
Collections
Date published
25 July 2025
Case action
Ruling
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
It is my finding therefore, that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute and the Reference and the Application filed therewith are hereby struck out.
Skip to document content
1.The motion by the Tenant dated 4.05.2025 seeks orders that the Tenant be granted access to the premises and the 2nd Respondent be ordered to return the recovered assets belonging to the Applicant which were taken away from Empress Plaza, Office Suites, L.R. No. 1870/266 Jalaram Road, Nairobi County (The suit premises). The Applicant has also sought an order that the parties be given a grace period of ninety days to reconcile the rent accounts and that the Tenant’s deposit of Kshs. 500,000/= be taken into account in calculating the rent arrears. The Tenant has also sought an order that if within ninety days there is no settlement, then it be given a sixty days’ notice to vacate the suit premises.
2.I have perused the “Commercial lease agreement” annexed to the affidavit of the Tenant. At clause 2 thereof, it is provided as follows;-“To hold the same unto the lessee for the terms of five years and three months from the 1st day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Two to 31st day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Seven.”
3.The lease agreement annexed by the Tenant is for a period of more than five years and a perusal of the document as annexed, does not show any clause for termination of the lease agreement otherwise than for breach of covenant. The lease agreement between the parties herein does not therefore give rise to a controlled tenancy which has been described as the tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment;a.Which has not been reduced into writing ORb.Which has been reduced into writing and whichi.Is for a period not exceeding five years orii.Contains provision for termination otherwise than for breach of covenant within five years from the commencement thereof ORiii.Relates to provisions of a class specified under subsection (2) of this section.
4.It is my finding therefore, that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute and the Reference and the Application filed therewith are hereby struck out.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025.HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the absence of the parties
▲ To the top