Gichachi v Mukaria (Tribunal Case E069 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 400 (KLR) (12 September 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 400 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E069 of 2025
J Osodo, Chair & Gakuhi Chege, Member
September 12, 2025
Between
Eric Wachira Gichachi
Tenant
and
James Tontol Mukaria
Landlord
Ruling
A. Dispute background
1.The tenant/applicant moved this Tribunal vide a Reference dated 5th May 2025 under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap 301 with a complaint that the landlord unlawfully closed his business premises despite faithfully paying rent and issued a notice to vacate with an intention of taking over the business premises and goodwill created by him.
2.The tenant further states that the notice to terminate tenancy is malicious and a ploy to reap from his business reputation, clientele, and investments. He prays that the Tribunal declines to uphold the notice and instead orders the landlord to compensate him by paying: KES. 320,000 for income lost, issue not less than 60 days’ notice to vacate, KES. 600,000 as goodwill, and KES. 300,000 for renovations undertaken on the premises.
3.The tenant has also filed a reference dated 5th May 2025 opposing the landlord’s notice to terminate tenancy dated 7th April 2025 under section 6 of Cap 301 Laws of Kenya.
4.The tenant/applicant filed a notice of motion under a certificate of urgency dated 14th July 2025 in which he sought that the landlord be compelled to immediately reopen and reconnect electricity to the suit premises, known as Mobitech Electronics at Olmoran Town Jai House. He also seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the landlord, his agents, or employees from harassing, intimidating, evicting, attaching goods, or in any way interfering with his peaceful occupation and business operations at the premises. Further, the applicant seeks that the OCS Olmoran Police Station provides security to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s orders. Lastly, he prays for compensation for damages and losses incurred pending the hearing and determination of the reference.
5.The application is supported by an affidavit of even date in which the tenant deposes that he is the tenant of a business premises known as Mobitech Electronics at Olmoran Town Jai House. Without any lawful cause, the respondent closed the premises on 11th March 2025. Following this, the tenant issued a demand letter dated 27th March 2025, seeking reopening of the premises, which he annexes and marks as “EWG1.” Instead of complying, the respondent issued a notice to terminate tenancy dated 7th April 2025, which the applicant annexes and marks as “EWG2.”
6.Upon receipt of the said notice, the applicant objected through his advocate by a letter dated 5th May 2025, annexed and marked as “EWG3.” He further confirms that before the expiry of the notice period, he filed the present reference, which was served upon the respondent on 24th June 2025, annexed and marked as “EWG4.”
7.That despite these actions, on 27th June 2025, the respondent maliciously caused the tenant’s arrest on charges of forcible detainer. He was released on bail of Kshs. 10,000/-, after which the respondent caused the electricity supply to be disconnected from the premises on 2nd July 2025 which is evidenced by a receipt annexed and marked as “EWG5.”
8.The tenant adds that on 6th July 2025, the respondent again closed down the premises without reference to the Tribunal, an act captured in photographs annexed and marked as “EWG6”. The applicant deposes that the continued closure of the premises is unlawful and has led to substantial losses, amounting to KES. 20,000 per day, totaling KES. 240,000 as at 14th July 2025, with losses continuing to accrue daily.
9.The applicant further states that this illegal closure has exposed him to risks of damage, theft, and interference with his goods. That his employees, who rely on daily wages, have greatly suffered due to lack of income. He also explains that as a teacher, he has taken loans to finance the business, which he services from his salary, and the closure has placed him under immense financial pressure. Despite paying rent promptly, the respondent has arbitrarily shut down his business.
10.The Tribunal issued ex-parte orders dated 18th July 2025 ordering the respondent/landlord to reopen and reconnect electricity at the suit premises pending the hearing of the application.
11.The landlord/respondent, filed a response dated 30th July 2025 in opposition to the tenant’s reference and a replying affidavit dated 11th July 2025 to the tenant’s application. He categorically denies the allegations made by the tenant, save for what is specifically admitted, and states that he served the tenant with a valid Notice of Termination dated 7th April 2025, which was to take effect on 1st July 2025. He confirms his address of service and avers that the reference by the tenant was precipitated solely by the lawful notice he issued.
12.The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims regarding renovations, asserting that he never consented to any alterations or modifications of the premises. He argues that any developments done by the tenant without permission were illegal and carried out at the tenant’s own risk, thereby making the claim for refund of KES. 300,000 untenable. He emphasizes that not a single receipt or proof of expenditure on renovations has been provided, neither has any evidence of losses incurred been tendered.
13.Further, the landlord challenges the tenant’s allegation of income loss amounting to KES. 320,000, describing it as baseless since no proof of prior earnings has been presented before the Tribunal. Likewise, he dismisses the demand for KES. 600,000 as goodwill, arguing that the claim is unfounded as there is no valuation of the business in terms of established reputation or customer loyalty that would justify such compensation.
14.The landlord also rejects the tenant’s plea for an additional 60 days to vacate the premises, pointing out that the notice dated 7th April 2025 already gave the tenant 60 days to vacate, effective from 1st July 2025. He contends that the tenant’s request is therefore unreasonable and unnecessary.
15.In conclusion, the landlord avers that the tenant’s reference is unjustified and should be dismissed with costs. He prays that the Notice of Termination dated 7th April 2025 be upheld and that the tenant be ordered to give vacant possession. He argues that the tenant is a perennial rent defaulter and that he requires the premises for his personal use for a period exceeding one year.
16.The tenant filed a supplementary affidavit dated 13th August 2025 in which he reaffirms his position in the dispute. He explains that he has reviewed the landlord’s replying affidavit and now seeks to clarify that there was a verbal agreement with the landlord granting him exclusive occupation and use of the business premises, which allowed him to develop and build the business for his trade in electronics.
17.He further states that it is undisputed that the landlord closed the business premises and prevented him from operating, which directly led to his inability to run his informal business of selling electronics and charging cables. That as a result, he has been incurring significant financial losses. He stresses that the closure, combined with harassment from the landlord, has left him unable to meet his daily expenses, and even the costs of pursuing this reference have been met with the financial support of his advocate, Mr. Gakenia.
18.The applicant concludes by stating that it is only fair and just that he be compensated for the losses suffered as a result of the landlord’s actions.
19.The Tribunal directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions and both parties complied by filing their written submissions dated 13th August 2025. We shall consider the submissions as we deal with the issues for determination.
B. Issues for Determination and Analysis
20.The following issues arise for determination; -a.Whether the notice to terminate tenancy dated 7th April 2025 is validb.Whether the tenant is entitled to the orders sought in the application dated 14th July 2025c.Who shall bear the costs of the application?
Issue (a) Whether the notice to terminate tenancy dated 7th April 2025 is valid
9.The notice to terminate dated 7th April 2025 was served in the prescribed statutory form under Section 4 of Cap 301. In Manaver N. Alibhai t/a Diani Boutique v South Coast Fitness & Sports Centre Ltd Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1994, the Court of Appeal held:
10.In this case, the tenant filed a Reference (Form B) under Section 6 of Cap 301. Once such a Reference is filed, the effect of the notice is suspended pending the determination of the reference. Accordingly, the validity of the notice can only be determined upon a full hearing on its merits.
Issue (b) Whether the tenant is entitled to the orders sought in the application dated 14th July 2025
11.The tenant has demonstrated, through annexures “EWG1–EWG6,” that the landlord closed the premises and disconnected electricity before the reference was heard. This warrants protective orders.
12.However, the tenant’s monetary claims (losses of Kshs. 320,000, renovations of Kshs. 300,000, and goodwill of Kshs. 600,000) remain unsupported by documentary proof. The law is clear that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
13.In George & Another v Babu Civil Appeal No. E130 of 2023 [2024] KEHC 5986 (KLR), the High Court stated:
14.Similarly, in Mamboleo v Kang’ethe BPRT Case E740 of 2021 [2022] KEBPRT 806, this Tribunal observed as follows:
15.Guided by the above authorities, the Tribunal finds that the tenant’s claim for compensation for losses, renovations, and goodwill remains unproven and cannot be granted at this interlocutory stage.
Issue (c) Who shall bear the costs of the application.
16.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. Costs shall abide the outcome of the substantive reference.
C. Orders
17.In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal makes the following orders:a.The tenant having filed a Reference under Section 6 of Cap 301 dated 5th May 2025, the matter shall proceed to full hearing for determination of the validity of the notice to terminate tenancy dated 7th April 2025.b.Parties shall comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 21 days hereof.c.The application dated 14th July 2025 is allowed in the following terms; -i.Pending the determination of the reference, an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the landlord, his servants or agents from harassing, intimidating, evicting, closing, or in any manner interfering with the tenant’s peaceful occupation of the premises known as Mobitech Electronics, Olmoran Town Jai House.ii.The landlord shall maintain access and electricity connection to the tenant’s business premises.iii.The OCS Olmoran Station shall ensure compliance with these orders.d.The tenant’s claim for losses, goodwill, and renovations shall also be determined in the main reference.e.Costs of the application shall be in the cause.It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH DAY of SEPTEMBER 2025.HON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)HON GAKUHI CHEGE - (PANEL MEMBER)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALIn the presence of:Muchangi for LandlordGicheru for tenant