Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Momanyi v Musa (Tribunal Case E053 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 384 (KLR) (22 August 2025) (Ruling)

Momanyi v Musa (Tribunal Case E053 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 384 (KLR) (22 August 2025) (Ruling)
Citation
Momanyi v Musa [2025] KEBPRT 384 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 384 (KLR)
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Outcome
Struck out
Case number
Tribunal Case E053 of 2025
Attorneys
Mr. Lelei,
Judges
N Wahome, Joyce Murigi
Judgment date
22 August 2025
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (19.4 KB)
Collections
Date published
04 September 2025
Case action
Ruling
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-i.That the Applicant’s reference and notice of motion application both dated 17/1/2025 are struck out.ii.That the Respondent is awarded costs assessed at Kshs.30,000/-.Those are the orders of the court.
Skip to document content
1.The Tenant approached this court vide the reference dated 17/1/2025 which was anchored on Section 12[4] of the Landlord and Tenant [Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments] Act [Cap. 301] herein after referred to as “the Act”. The grievances by the Tenant were that:-“[a]The Landlord has given an illegal termination notice, [b] has sent auctioneers to illegally proclaim my goods and sell them yet he is not the Landlord just yet [c] there is an ongoing case as to who is the Landlord in Narok ELC and we as Tenants were directed to deposit rent directly to the Narok Law Courts”.
2.With the reference, the Tenant also filed the notice of motion of the even date. He sought to be allowed complete quiet possession of his business premises within plot No.129 Block 4 [formerly] Plot No. 58 Narok Township. He also sought that the Landlord be restrained from levying distress on his premises.
3.What the Applicant did not inform this court is that the levy of distress herein was being effected pursuant to an order of a Judge of the Environment and Land Court at Narok in case No. 6 of 2020. It also must have escaped the attention of this court when the interim orders herein were granted on 17/1/2025 in view of the respondents own averment to the absence of a landlord and Tenant relationship between the parties.
4.At paragraph [b] of the Applicants complaint in the reference dated 17/1/2025 he stated that:-“The landlord has sent auctioneers to illegally proclaim my goods and sell them yet he is not the landlord yet”.
5.From the foregoing, we doubt that this court has the jurisdiction to superintend over this matter. in our view, this suit and attendant application are an abuse of the court process and purely intended to shield the Tenant from his obligations pursuant to the orders in Narok ELC No. 6 of 2020.
6.It is trite that without jurisdiction, this court may not take any further steps in these proceedings. In this, we rely on the celebrated case of the Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil [k] Ltd [1989] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that:-“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step…A court of law down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction”.
7.By his own admission, the Applicant has appreciated that there is no Landlord and Tenant relationship between him and the Respondent. That is a clear indictment that he still chose to file the present suit here. In the locus classicus case of Pritam v Ratilal & Another [1972] EA 560 Madan J. [As he then was held that,-“Therefore the existence of the relationship of Landlord and Tenant is a pre-requisite to the application of the Act and where such a relationship does not exist or it has come to or been brought to an end, the provisions of the Act will not apply. The applicability of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Tribunal, otherwise the Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction. There must be a controlled tenancy as defined in Section 2 to which the provisions of the Act can be made to apply. Outside it, the tribunal has no jurisdiction”.
8.The upshot of all the above is that the applicants reference and Application both dated the 17/1/2025 are struck out. If indeed the Applicant was craving for justice, he should have moved the Narok ELC Court in case No. 6 of 2020 for the appropriate remedies if at all.
9.The Respondent is the successful party in this matter and in concurrence with the provisions of Section 12[1] [k] of the Act we award him costs.
10.In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-i.That the Applicant’s reference and notice of motion application both dated 17/1/2025 are struck out.ii.That the Respondent is awarded costs assessed at Kshs.30,000/-.Those are the orders of the court.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS - PANEL CHAIRPERSONHON. JOYCE MURIGI - MEMBERBUSINESS PREMSIES RENT TRIBUNAL (BPRT)Ruling delivered in the presence of Mr. Lelei for the Landlord and Mr. Nyaberi for the TenantBUSINESS PREMSIES RENT TRIBUNAL (BPRT)
▲ To the top