Aaran Drinks Limited v Omar (Tribunal Case E653 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 403 (KLR) (12 September 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 403 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E653 of 2025
Gakuhi Chege, Chair & J Osodo, Member
September 12, 2025
Between
Aaran Drinks Limited
Applicant
and
Amina Mohamed Omar
Respondent
Ruling
1.The Applicant/Tenant, Aaran Drinks Limited, moved this Tribunal by a Reference and Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 under certificate of urgency seeking orders to restrain the Respondents from interfering with its quiet possession and enjoyment of Shop Number 3 on Plot No. 209/17488.
2.The Applicant contends that it is a lawful tenant having entered into a lease agreement with the 1st Respondent effective 1st June 2025, paid four months’ rent in advance, and taken possession after the premises was vacated pursuant to lawful eviction orders issued in Nairobi BPRT No. E1089 of 2024.
3.The 1st Respondent/Landlord, in his Replying Affidavit sworn on 18th July 2025, confirms that the Applicant is indeed his lawful tenant and supports the application. He annexes orders dated 21st May 2025 in BPRT No. E1089 of 2024, authorizing the eviction of the 2nd Respondent and granting him liberty to re-let the premises.
4.The 2nd Respondent/Former Tenant, Amina Mohamed Omar, filed a Replying Affidavit dated 27th June 2025 opposing the application. She contends that she enjoys stay orders from the Environment and Land Court in ELC Appeal No. E007 of 2025 and insists that the Applicant’s lease is null and void.
5.The matter was directed to proceed by way of written submissions and both parties complied. We have taken the submissions into consideration in arriving at our decision.
B. Issues For Determination
6.From the pleadings and submissions, the following issues arise for determination:i.Whether the Applicant is the lawful tenant entitled to protection under Cap. 301;ii.Whether the orders sought restraining the Respondents should be granted;iii.Who should bear the costs of the proceedings.
C. Legal Analysis & Determination
7.Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap. 301 empowers this Tribunal to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, including injunctive relief to protect a tenant from harassment or unlawful eviction.
8.It is not disputed that the Applicant entered into a written tenancy agreement with the 1st Respondent on 25th May 2025, effective 1st June 2025. The 1st Respondent confirms that the premises were vacant at the time, having been lawfully recovered through Nairobi BPRT E1089 OF 2024.
9.Accordingly, a valid landlord-tenant relationship exists between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent within the meaning of section 2 of Cap. 301.
10.The 2nd Respondent’s contention that she remains a tenant is not supported by any subsisting order of reinstatement. Indeed, the orders of 21st May 2025 expressly authorized the 1st Respondent to let the premises to another tenant. Her remedy lies in the contempt proceedings she has filed before the Environment and Land Court, not against the innocent new tenant.
11.The principles guiding the grant of injunctions were set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, where Spry V-P held:
12.These principles were reiterated in Nguruman Limited v Jane Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR where the Court of Appeal observed:"These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially."
13.In Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd [2003] KLR 125, Bosire JA defined a prima facie case as:
14.Applying these principles, we are satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case. It is in lawful possession under a lease agreement supported by consideration. The threat of eviction or harassment by the 2nd Respondent is real and would occasion irreparable loss given the Applicant’s ongoing business investment. The balance of convenience clearly tilts in favour of protecting the lawful tenant.
15.The Tribunal is further guided by the decision in Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another ex parte Albert Kigera Karume [2015] eKLR where the High Court affirmed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant injunctive orders to protect tenants under Cap. 301.
16.Equally persuasive is Otieno v Onyango & 5 Others [2025] KEELC 5085 (KLR) where the court emphasized that the rights of a proprietor under sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act are not to be defeated except in accordance with the law, and that no person can impose a tenancy on a landlord without his consent.
17.In regard to costs, section 12(1)(k) of Cap 301, grants this Tribunal jurisdiction to make orders on costs. The 2nd Respondent is liable to pay costs of the case to the Applicant who is the successful party.
D. Final Orders
18.Having considered the pleadings, affidavits, submissions and authorities cited, this Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s Reference and Application dated 11th June 2025 are merited. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby issued:a.The Respondents, their agents or servants are hereby restrained from interfering with the Applicant’s quiet possession and enjoyment of Shop No. 3 on Plot No. 209/17488 for the duration of its tenancy.b.The OCS Eastleigh North Police Station shall ensure compliance with these orders.c.The 2nd Respondent is directed not to access or interfere with the Applicant’s business in the suit premises.d.Costs of the application and reference shall be borne by the 2nd Respondent.e.The Applicant’s reference is settled in terms.
It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025HON. GAKUHI CHEGE (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO(Panel Member)In The Presence Of: -Miss Oketch for the tenantMiss Wanyama for the landlordKaromo for the Respondent