Muthoni v Ndegwa & another (Tribunal Case E077 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 383 (KLR) (21 August 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 383 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E077 of 2025

N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member

August 21, 2025

Between

Mary Muthoni

Tenant

and

Jessy Ndegwa

LandLady

and

Sortmasters Investments Ltd

Agent

Ruling

1.The suit herein was triggered by the Landlord’s purported notice to the Tenant to vacate the demised premises known as shop Nos. A6and A7 on plot No. Market 39- Mawanga which is dated 29^th April 2025.

2.The notice was to the effect that,-“We are writing in reference to the above matter that we are giving you one month notice effective date of receipt of the letter to vacate room you have occupied”The notice continued to provide that,-“Therefore we are giving you one month notice to vacate which expires on 31/5/2025, and you should ensure your utility bills and rent arrears are cleared on or before expiry of the notice”.

3.The Landlord indicated that the grounds for the termination were that the Tenant was in breach of clause 8 of the Tenancy agreement dated 1/11/2024 (Annexture GK-2).

4.In her application, the tenant applied that she be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises, that the landlord be compelled to restore water and electricity in the premises and that the notice of termination dated 29/4/2025 be declared non compliant with Cap. 301.

5.We have perused the parties respective pleadings, the attached documents and the oral submissions rendered in court on the 17/7/2025 and are of the view that the only issues that emerge for our determination are:-i.Whether the Tenant’s application dated 14/5/2025 has merit.ii.Who should bear the costs of these proceedings.

i. Whether the Tenant’s application dated 14/5/2025 has merit

6.To determine this issue, we need to look at what triggered this suit and the Application thereof. We have no doubt that it was the termination notice dated 29/4/2025. The further trigger of this suit is the alleged disconnection of water and electricity from the premises.

7.The validity of the said termination notice is challenged on the grounds that it is not compliant with the law. We are in agreement with that disposition by the Tenant.Section 4(2) of Cap. 301 provides that:-“A landlord who wishes to terminate a controlled Tenancy or to alter, to the detriment of the Tenant, any term or condition in, or right or service enjoyed by the Tenant under such a tenancy, shall give notice in that behalf to the tenant in the prescribed form”.

8.The prescribed form alluded to herein above is provided for by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations to the Act. The same provides that:-“A notice under Section 4(2) of the Act by a landlord shall be in form A in the schedule to these Regulations”.We doubt that the respondents were compliant with the provisions of the law in that regard.

9.The Respondents were also in breach of section 4(4) of the Act as they had allowed the Tenant 30 days only to surrender the premises to them. The section provides that:-“No Tenancy notice shall take effect until such date not being less than two months after receipt thereof by the receiving party, as shall be specified therein”.

10.This question is now settled in our jurisprudence and such a notice would have no legal effect nor consequence in the Locus Classicus Case of Fredrick Mutua Mulinge T/A Kitui Uniform – vs- Kitui Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd (2017) eKLR the High Court on the same issue held that:-“It is not in dispute that the notice dated 28/6/2014 issued by the respondent herein gave the Appellant 2 days notice of termination of his tenancy as it was to take effect on 1/7/2014. I am in agreement with the submissions by the Appellant that by failing to comply with Section 4(4) of the Act, the notice of termination dated 28/6/2014 was defective, null and void for all intents and purposes. This position of the law is now settled as can be seen in the cases that are cited below”.

11.In our view therefore, the purported notice of termination dated 29/4/2025 is null and void abinitio and we proceed to dismiss the same with that determination, we need not address the other grounds of opposition by the Respondents to the Tenants Application.

12.The Respondents have testified on oath that they have never disconnected electricity or water from the premises. We shall then allow the Tenants application to the effect that the Respondents shall not interfere with electricity and water supply for the Tenant. If they do the Tenant shall be at liberty to restore the same at the Respondents expense.

13.We would have concluded this matter at this juncture as the reference dated 14/5/2025 is in the same terms with the Application of the even date. However, the Tenant has filed the Application dated 14/7/2025 which may be obstructed if the reference is settled at this point. We shall therefore allow the reference to subsist with a view to allowing the parties canvas all the issues herein.

ii. Who should bear the costs of the application.

14.The Tenant is the successful party and shall award her costs pursuant to Section 12(1) k of the Act.

15.In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-i.That the application dated 14/5/2025 is allowed in its entirety and in particular in terms that:-a.The notice of termination dated 29/4/2025 is declared unlawful.b.The Landlord to restore water and electricity supply to the Tenant with immediate effect and in default the Tenant to restore the same at the landlord’s expense.c.The Tenant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises.d.That the tenant is awarded costs of the Application assessed at Kshs.10,000/- to be offset from rent payable to the Landlord.Those are the orders of the court.

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.HON. NDEGWA WAHOME MBS, - PANEL CHAIRPERSONHON. JOYCE MURIGI, - MEMBERBUSINESS PREMSIES RENT TRIBUNAL. BPRT.Ruling delivered in the presence of the Tenant in person and Mr. Kaburu for the 1^st Respondent/Landlord.