Guru v Valleys Limited & 3 others (Tribunal Case E257 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 410 (KLR) (4 September 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 410 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E257 of 2025
J Osodo, Chair & Gakuhi Chege, Member
September 4, 2025
Between
Iphone Guru
Tenant
and
Valleys Limited
1st Respondent
Mukesh Popat
2nd Respondent
Pratibha Popat
3rd Respondent
Kelvin Nyamu
4th Respondent
Ruling
A. Dispute Background
1.This matter was commenced through the Tenant’s Reference dated 6th March 2025 under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, wherein the Applicant alleged that the Landlord broke into the premises, evicted him, and confiscated his tools of trade contrary to law.
2.Together with the Reference, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2025 seeking urgent reinstatement into the premises, release of his tools of trade, and injunctive relief.
3.On 10th March 2025, the Tribunal issued ex-parte orders directing the Respondents to reopen and reinstate the Tenant into the suit premises and to return his tools of trade forthwith. The matter was scheduled for inter-partes hearing on 24th March 2025.
4.In the meantime, the 4th Respondent, Kelvin Nyamu, who had already entered into a tenancy agreement dated 1st March 2025 with the 1st Respondent and taken possession, filed a Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2025 seeking to stay and set aside the ex-parte orders.
5.On 24th March 2025, at the inter partes hearing, Hon. Muma suspended the operation of the ex-parte orders of 10th March 2025 pending determination of the applications and reference.
6.The 1st to 3rd Respondents opposed the Application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th March 2025 by Pratibha Popat, stating that the Applicant was in rent arrears of over KES. 900,000, was lawfully evicted on 17th February 2025, and that the premises had been validly leased to the 4th Respondent.
7.The 4th Respondent swore a Replying Affidavit on 20th March 2025 confirming that he is the bona fide tenant in occupation, while the Applicant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 21st March 2025 insisting, he remained protected under Cap 301.
B. Issues For Determination
8.The following issues arise for determination; -a.Whether there exists a landlord–tenant relationship between the Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Respondents.b.The effect ofthe applicant’s application dated 6th March 2025 and 4th Respondent’s Application dated 14th March 2025.c.Who shall bear the costs of the application?Issue (a) Whether there exists a landlord–tenant relationship between the Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Respondents.
8.It is undisputed that the Applicant was initially a tenant of the 1st Respondent under a tenancy agreement dated 13th September 2017, which qualifies as a controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301.
9.However, evidence shows that the Applicant defaulted in rent payment, accumulated arrears in excess of KES. 900,000, and was evicted on 17th February 2025. His goods were inventoried and placed in storage, and the premises were subsequently leased to the 4th Respondent on 1st March 2025.
10.At the time of filing the Reference on 6th March 2025, the Applicant was no longer in possession.
11.Jurisdiction under Cap 301 is anchored on the existence of a controlled tenancy. As was held in Pritam v Ratilal [1972] EA 560:
12.The High Court reiterated this in Republic v Chairperson, BPRT ex parte Suraj Housing & Properties Ltd (2016) eKLR:
13.Similarly, in Eben Hardware Hepbjay Ltd v Mugo & Another (BPRT Case E063 of 2023) [2023] KEBPRT 461, the Tribunal held:
14.Applying these principles, we find that the landlord–tenant relationship between the Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Respondents ended and possession was taken over by the 4th Respondent. This Tribunal is therefore divested of jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.Issue (b) The effect on the Applicant’s Application dated 6th March 2025 and the 4th Respondent’s Application dated 14th March 2025
20.Having already found under issue (a) that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute on account of the absence of a subsisting landlord–tenant relationship, it follows that this Tribunal cannot grant the substantive reliefs sought in either the Applicant’s Application dated 6th March 2025 or the 4th Respondent’s Application dated 14th March 2025.
21.Accordingly, both Applications and the Reference must fall for want of jurisdiction. The Applicant is, however, at liberty to pursue his grievances in the appropriate court with competent jurisdiction.
22.Consequently, all interim orders previously issued herein, including the ex parte orders of 10th March 2025, are hereby discharged.
Issue (c) Who shall bear the costs of the application
23.Costs follow the event. In light of the above findings, the Applications and Reference having been struck out, costs of the suit shall be borne by the Applicant.
C. Final Orders
24.In conclusion, the Tribunal makes the following orders:a.All the applications and the reference dated 6th March 2025 are hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.b.All interim orders, including those issued on 10th March 2025, are hereby discharged.c.The Applicant is at liberty to pursue his claim in the appropriate court.d.Costs of KES. 30,000 are awarded to the Respondents.
It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH SEPTEMBER 2025HON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON GAKUHI CHEGE - MEMBER)In the presence of:Ndaiga for 1st-3rd RespondentsNo appearance for Applicant and 4th Respondent