Imran & 4 others v Belgut Traders Limited (Tribunal Case E024 & E060 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEBPRT 379 (KLR) (15 August 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 379 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E024 & E060 of 2025 (Consolidated)
Gakuhi Chege, Chair & J Osodo, Member
August 15, 2025
Between
Mohamed Imran
1st Tenant
Stephen Ngatia Kamau
2nd Tenant
Enock Nashon Wanyembe
3rd Tenant
Munir Hanif Bashir Sokwala
4th Tenant
Barack Ogiaga Saoke t/a Jamaha Service Centre
5th Tenant
and
Belgut Traders Limited
Landlord
Judgment
A. Dispute Background
1.These consolidated references are brought under section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, Laws of Kenya. The dispute revolves around the landlord’s notices dated 16th January 2025 and 25th February 2025, which required the tenants occupying various business units on L.R. No. 631/19/IV Kericho Municipality to vacate in order to facilitate renovations following a letter from the County Government of Kericho dated 9th July 2024.
2.In BPRT No. E024 of 2025, the tenants namely Mohamed Imran, Stephen Ngatia Kamau, Enock Nashon Wanyembe, and Munir Hanif Bashir Sokwala state that they have been in occupation for many years, some since 2005, and have invested heavily in developing their respective premises.
3.In BPRT No. E060 of 2025, the tenant, Barack Ogiaga Saoke T/A Jamaha Service Centre, states that his business has operated on the premises since the 1970s, employs over 19 people, and has machinery embedded into the structure that would take months to dismantle.
4.The tenants in both matters allege that the notices served upon them were illegal for not being in the prescribed statutory form and that the landlord’s actions amount to an attempt to evict them without following the procedures in Cap 301.
B. Pleadings & Submissions Filed by the Parties
(i) Tenants’ Pleadings & Evidence
6.In E024 of 2025, the tenants filed a Reference & Notice of Motion dated 13th February 2025, supported by the affidavit of Mohamed Imran sworn on the same date. The affidavit attaches annexures “MI-1” being a Copy of the impugned notice dated 16th January 2025 & MI-2 being rent receipts and bankers’ cheques demonstrating rent payment up to the date of swearing the affidavit.
7.It is deposed that the tenants have no rent arrears and have made substantial developments on the premises and rely on the businesses for their livelihoods.
8.In their further affidavits and submissions dated 12th March 2025, the tenants submit that both notices of 16th January 2025 and 25th February 2025 failed to comply with the prescribed form under section 4(2) Cap 301 and that the landlord cannot introduce a new notice in existing proceedings without leave.
9.Reliance was placed on the case of Imtiaz v Mohamed [2025] KEBPRT 145, where a defective notice was struck out, and the landlord barred from issuing a new notice for 12 months.
10.In E060 of 2025, the tenant filed a Reference & Notice of Motion in April 2025 supported by his affidavit, attaching annexures BOS-1: Certificate of registration of Jamaha Service Centre, BOS-2: Rent receipts, BOS-3: Business permit, BOS-4: Sales records, BOS-5: Photographs of installed machinery & BOS-6: List of 19 employees.
11.He deposes that relocation of the business would cause irreparable loss, and he is willing to cooperate with the landlord in the process of carrying out the renovations whilst in occupation.
(ii) Landlord’s Pleadings & Evidence
8.The landlord filed Replying Affidavits in both matters sworn by Stephen Kiplangat Sang (Company Secretary), attaching annexures, SKS-1: Board authority to swear affidavit, SKS-2: County Government of Kericho letter dated 9th July 2024, listing defects including roof truss damage, cracks in extensions, inadequate sanitation, and wet rot on fascia timber.
9.The landlord deposes that the 16th January 2025 notice was a “vacation notice” for renovations, not eviction and that the 25th February 2025 notice was issued in compliance with section 4 of Cap 301.
10.According to the landlord, the tenants have made illegal extensions, sublet units without consent, and in some cases pay rent as low as Kshs 1,500/= contrary to the market rate.
(iii) Parties’ Submissions
10.The tenants emphasize the mandatory nature of section 4(2) Cap 301, citing the decisions in Pritam v Ratilal & Another [1972] EA 560 & Imtiaz v Mohamed (supra), and urge application of the 12-month bar.
11.The Landlord on the other hand argues that the 25th February 2025 notice is valid, relying on section 4(1) to (6) of Cap 301, and the case of Shadrack Arap Baiywo v Bodi Bach [1987] eKLR on proof of service. He submits that renovations are necessary for safety and compliance with County Government directives.
C. Issues for Determination, Law Applicable & Relevant Case Law
10.The following arise for determination in this case: -a.Whether the notices comply with section 4(2) Cap 301.b.Whether the landlord can enforce vacation for renovations absent a valid notice.c.Whether a 12-month bar should apply against issuance of fresh notices.d.who is liable to pay costs of the case?
Issue a) Whether the notices comply with section 4(2) Cap 301.
13.Section 4(2) provides that a landlord wishing to terminate or alter a controlled tenancy “shall give notice in that behalf to the tenant in the prescribed form.” The prescribed form is set out in Form A of the Schedule to the Regulations.
14.In Pritam v Ratilal (supra) and Manaver Alibhai t/a Diani Boutique v South Coast Fitness & Sports Centre Ltd [1995–1998] 2 EA 257, the superior courts held that failure to strictly comply with the statutory form renders a notice null and void, and such defect is not a mere technicality curable under procedural rules.
15.The 16th January 2025 notice was not in the prescribed form and omitted mandatory particulars, including the requirement for the tenant’s written response within one month. It is therefore fatally defective.
16.The 25th February 2025 notice, though in closer conformity, was served within ongoing proceedings commenced on the basis of the earlier defective notice and was issued without leave of the Tribunal. In Imtiaz v Mohamed (supra), such conduct was found to be an abuse of process.
Issue b) Whether the landlord can enforce vacation for renovations absent a valid notice.
17.Cap 301 does not create a separate regime for temporary relocation; any alteration to the terms of tenancy, even for renovations, must follow section 4. The County Government letter is not, in itself, a tenancy termination or alteration notice under the Act.
18.In Manaver Alibhai (supra), the Court of Appeal reiterated that a landlord cannot sidestep statutory procedure by invoking other laws or practical considerations and that compliance with section 4 is mandatory.
Issue c) Whether a 12-month bar should apply against issuance of fresh notices.
19.Section 9(3) of Cap. 301, provides as follows: -‘9(3)Where a Tribunal has made a determination upon a reference, no further tenancy notice shall be given in respect of the premises concerned, which is based on any of the matters affected by the determination—(a)in the case of an assessment of rent, until after the expiration of two years; or(b)in any other case, until after the expiration of twelve months, after the date of the determination, unless the Tribunal, at the time of the determination, specifies some shorter period.”
19.The foregoing provision however presupposes that the notice upon which a determination is made is a valid one and it would amount to a travesty of justice if we were to apply the same reasoning in regard to a defective notice. We are therefore not persuaded to make such an order in this case.
Issue d) who is liable to pay costs of the case?
19.Under Section 12(1) (k) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, costs of any suit before this tribunal are in its discretion but always follow the event unless for good reasons otherwise ordered. We shall order costs to the tenant/respondent.
D. Final Orders
19.Having considered the pleadings, evidence, submissions, and authorities, we find and order as follows: -a.The landlord’s notices dated 16th January 2025 and 25th February 2025 are declared invalid for non-compliance with section 4(2) of Cap 301.b.The landlord is granted leave to issue fresh termination or alteration notices upon the tenants.c.The tenants shall remain in peaceful occupation of their respective premises.d.Rent shall be paid as and when due and if the landlord declines to accept it, it shall be deposited with the Tribunal.e.The OCS Kericho Police Station shall ensure compliance and protect the tenants from unlawful eviction.f.The tenants are awarded costs assessed at Kshs 10,000/= each which shall be offset against their rent accounts with the landlord.It is so ordered
JUDGEMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025HON. GAKUHI CHEGEPANEL - CHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - PANEL MEMBERIn the presence of: -Miss Chebet holding brief for Kemboi for the landlordKirui holding brief for okok for tenant in E024/2025Miss Chepngetich for tenant in E060/2025