Mukunga & others v Mahiga Produce Trading Co Ltd (Tribunal Case E041 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 418 (KLR) (26 September 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 418 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E041 of 2025
Gakuhi Chege, Chair & J Osodo, Member
September 26, 2025
Between
Charles Mukunga & Others
Applicant
and
Mahiga Produce Trading Co Ltd
Respondent
Judgment
Background
1.The Applicants/tenants of premises known as Nyeri Municipality Block 111/25, filed a reference before this Tribunal under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301. Their grievance is that the Respondent landlord has sought to increase rent, demand top-up of security deposits, and levy penalties for late payment without following the law.
2.They further allege harassment through threats of closure of premises. The Respondent relies on certain lease agreements which the tenants contend are expired, unsigned, or not witnessed, and therefore unenforceable.
3.The matter proceeded by way of the Tribunal conducting an off-record inquiry into the issues in dispute from both parties under section 12(4) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya and thereafter, it was agreed by consent that a judgement be written on the basis of documentary materials on record without undertaking a normal hearing of the dispute as the issues are straightforward.
B. Issues For Determination
4.The Tribunal identified the following issues for determination:a.Whether the alleged leases relied on by the landlord are valid and enforceable.b.Whether the tenancies are controlled tenancies under Cap 301.c.Whether rent or deposit increments without notice under Section 4(2) Cap 301 are valid.d.Whether the landlord/agent can impose penalties and close premises.e.Whether tenants can apply their six months’ deposits as rentf.What orders should issue.
B. Analysis And Determination
Validity of the Leases & Controlled Tenancy
5.The Tribunal finds that some of the leases relied on by the landlord have either expired or are not properly executed. Unsigned or unwitnessed leases cannot be enforced in law. Consequently, the relationship between the parties amounts to a controlled tenancy as defined under Section 3(2) of Cap 301.
6.In Caledonia Supermarket Ltd v Kenya National Examinations Council [2000] eKLR, the Court held:"A tenancy not reduced into writing or where the term exceeds five years without registration is a controlled tenancy within the meaning of the Act."
Requirement of Notice under Section 4(2)
7.Section 4(2) of Cap 301 requires a landlord seeking to increase rent or alter terms of a controlled tenancy to issue a statutory notice in the prescribed form. No such notice was served in this case. Any increment is therefore unlawful.
8.In Kasturi Limited v Nyeri Wholesalers Limited [2014] eKLR, the Court stated:"The Act makes it mandatory that any increment of rent in controlled tenancies must be by way of a statutory notice. Any increment outside the Act is null and void."
Rent Receipts and Role of Agent
9.The Tribunal notes that tenants pay rent directly into the landlord’s account. Accordingly, receipts must be issued in the name of the landlord, Mahiga Produce Trading Co. Ltd. The agent has no authority to impose conditions or penalties outside the tenancy contract.
10.In Kobil Petroleum Ltd v Onami [2005] eKLR, the Court affirmed:"An agent cannot create obligations beyond the authority given by the principal. Rent receipts must issue from the landlord."
Use of Security Deposit
11.The tenants prayed that their six months’ deposits be used to offset current rent. The Tribunal declines this prayer. Deposits are security and may only be applied at the end of tenancy to cater for arrears or damages.
12.In Mistry Amar Singh v Serwano Wofunira Kulubya [1963] EA 408, the Court observed:
Harassment by the Landlord or Agent
13.Evidence shows attempts by the Respondent and its agent to lock tenants out and impose unlawful penalties. This conduct amounts to harassment and interference with quiet possession, which is prohibited under Cap 301.
14.In Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Willesden Investments Limited [2001] eKLR, the Court held:
C. Final Orders
15.Based on the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal finds as follows: -a.The leases relied upon by the landlord are either expired, invalid, or unenforceable.b.The tenancies herein are controlled tenancies within Section 3(2) of Cap 301.c.Any rent or deposit increment without a statutory notice under Section 4(2) is null and void.d.The landlord and its agents are restrained from harassing tenants by closure of premises or illegal penalties and the OCS, Nyeri Police Station is directed to ensure compliance.e.The tenants’ prayer to apply deposits towards current rent is declined.f.Rent receipts shall issue in the landlord’s name, Mahiga Produce Trading Co. Ltd.g.The landlord is at liberty to issue statutory notices under Cap 301 if it wishes to increase rent or alter terms of the tenancies.h.Each party shall bear its own costs of the case.It is so ordered.
THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLYHON. GAKUHI CHEGE - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL MEMBER)In The Presence Of: -Daniel Kanyoro/Chairman of the landlordNo appearance by the tenants