Karabu v Karanja (Tribunal Case E634 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 389 (KLR) (Civ) (29 August 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 389 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E634 of 2025
Gakuhi Chege, Chair & J Osodo, Member
August 29, 2025
Between
Catherine Karabu
LandLady
and
Beth Wangui Karanja
Tenant
Ruling
A. Dispute Background & Analysis of Pleadings
1.This dispute arises from a tenancy relationship between Catherine Karabu, the Applicant (Landlady), and Beth Wangui Karanja, the Respondent (Tenant), in respect of Shop No. 2 located on the ground floor of Boon Apartments, TRM Drive, Roysambu, Nairobi. The tenancy agreement was entered into on 23rd May 2024 for a fixed term of one year at a rent of Kshs. 25,000 inclusive of water charges.
2.The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 3rd June 2025 under certificate of urgency seeking vacant possession of the premises, enforcement orders through the OCS Kasarani Police Station, and costs.
3.She deposed in her Supporting Affidavit sworn on 3rd June 2025 that the lease expired on 23rd May 2025 by effluxion of time and that she was not desirous of renewing it. She further deponed that the Respondent breached clause 5(iv) of the tenancy agreement by converting the shop into a sit-in wines and spirits outlet, operating late into the night, causing noise and nuisance to other tenants.
4.The Applicant’s submissions emphasized that the lease having expired by effluxion of time, no fresh notice was required. Reliance was placed on Section 12(1)(e) of Cap 301 which empowers the Tribunal to order recovery of possession and payment of mesne profits.
5.She further argued that monies paid after expiry were treated as mesne profits and not rent, as communicated through her Advocates’ letter dated 11th June 2025. Authorities cited included Nyokabi v Muthuuri (Tribunal Case E014 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 138 (KLR), Leah Wamaitha Nduati v Hoven Company Limited [2022] eKLR, and Kasturi Limited v Nyeri Wholesalers Limited [2014] eKLR.
6.The Respondent opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 23rd June 2025. She argued that the Applicant’s continued acceptance of rent beyond the expiry date created an implied tenancy and invoked the doctrine of estoppel under Section 120 of the Evidence Act.
7.She denied being a trespasser, stating that no proper notice of termination was served, and relied on a previous decision in BPRT E1259/2024 where eviction notices had been quashed. She also challenged the allegations of nuisance for lack of evidence by affected tenants.
B. Issues For Determination
8.The following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the tenancy relationship between the parties lapsed by effluxion of time on 23rd May 2025.b.Whether acceptance of rent after expiry created an implied tenancy or estoppel against the Applicant.c.Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Cap 301 to order vacant possession and mesne profits.d.Whether the Respondent should be ordered to vacate the premises and pay mesne profits.e.Who is liable to pay costs of the suit?
C. Analysis Of The Issues, Law Applicable & Determination
9.On the first issue, it is undisputed that the tenancy agreement was for a fixed term of one year, expiring on 23rd May 2025. The Applicant clearly communicated that she was not desirous of renewal. In Nyokabi v Muthuuri (Tribunal Case E014 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 138 (KLR), the Tribunal held: -"It is therefore clear that the lease agreement between the parties expired by effluxion of time on May 31, 2023 as provided for in the said agreement. It is also the position that where an agreement provides for its own expiry date, the parties are not obligated to issue fresh notices terminating the leases."
10.This Tribunal adopts the same reasoning: the lease herein expired on 23rd May 2025 and we find and hold that there was no need for service of a notice to terminate tenancy under section 4(2) of Cap 301, Laws of Kenya.
11.On the argument of implied tenancy, the Respondent submitted that the continued receipt of rent constituted renewal. However, the Applicant rebutted this by producing evidence that monies received after expiry were classified as mesne profits, not rent. In Leah Wamaitha Nduati v Hoven Company Limited [2022] eKLR, the Court cited Fredrick Korir v Soin United Women Group (2018) eKLR where mesne profits were defined as follows: -"Profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom together with interest on such profits but does not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession." "Mesne profits are awarded in place of rents, where the tenant remains in possession after the tenancy agreement has run out or has been duly determined."The Court further held that:
12.The Court of Appeal in Kasturi Limited v Nyeri Wholesalers Limited [2014] eKLR reinforced this principle stating:"It is plain that the tenancy agreement between the parties expired ... and has never been renewed. It is also plain that the appellant received a notice for non-renewal of the tenancy. A tenant cannot impose or force him/herself on a landlord. When the lease between the parties expired, it was incumbent upon the appellant to give vacant possession."
13.On jurisdiction, Section 12(1)(e) of Cap 301 provides:"The Tribunal shall have power ... to make orders, upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, for the recovery of possession and for the payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits, which orders may be applicable to any person whether or not he is a tenant being at any material time in occupation of the premises comprised in a controlled tenancy."
14.The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction even where the tenancy has lapsed, provided the occupant remains in possession.
15.On the entitlement to vacant possession, the Tribunal notes that the Respondent neither filed a reference nor produced evidence of renewal. Her reliance on estoppel is misplaced since the Applicant unequivocally declined to treat post-expiry payments as rent. As the Court stated in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda [2014] eKLR:"The doctrine of estoppel cannot found a cause of action where none exists; it only prevents a party from insisting on strict legal rights where it would be unjust to allow him to do so."
16.Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s continued stay after 23rd May 2025 constitutes wrongful occupation and trespass. She is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of Kshs. 25,000 per month until delivery of vacant possession.
17.Finally, 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 landlord.
D. Final Orders
18.In light of the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal makes the following orders:a.The tenancy between the Applicant and the Respondent expired by effluxion of time on 23rd May 2025 and was not renewed.b.The Respondent is hereby ordered to deliver vacant possession of Shop No. 2, Boon Apartments, TRM Drive, Roysambu, within thirty (30) days, failing which the Applicant shall be at liberty to evict her with the assistance of the OCS Kasarani Police Station.c.The Respondent shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Kshs. 25,000 per month effective 24th May 2025 until she yields possession.d.The Tenant/Respondent shall bear the costs of this suit.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025HON. GAKUHI CHEGE - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL MEMBER)In The Presence Of: -Ms Matengo for Landlord/ApplicantMatwere for Tenant/Respondent