Murigi v Citadel Real Estate Limited (Tribunal Case E756 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 421 (KLR) (26 September 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 421 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E756 of 2025
J Osodo, Chair & Gakuhi Chege, Member
September 26, 2025
Between
Lydia Njoki Murigi
Tenant
and
Citadel Real Estate Limited
Landlord
Ruling
A. Dispute Background
1.The Tenant/Applicant filed a Reference and Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2025 under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, seeking for orders to restrain the Respondent from evicting or interfering with her occupation of Shop Nos. 157 and 158 at Kamukunji, and further seeking reinstatement into the said premises
2.In her Supporting Affidavit sworn on 4th July 2025, the Tenant deponed that she has been in lawful occupation since January 2024 after purchasing the business from one Mustafa Aden Abdulahi. She averred that on 1st July 2025, the Landlord unlawfully locked the premises despite her rent payments. She further contended that the notice to vacate dated 26th May 2025 was illegal.
3.In her Further Affidavit dated 17th July 2025, the Tenant annexed evidence of rent payments and argued that the closure of her business amounted to an unlawful eviction. She maintained that she had complied with rent obligations. The tenant has also attached images showing closure of the suit premises as well as a screenshot of a message from the management on reopening of the suit premises annexed as ‘LNM3’.
4.The Landlord, through Said Ismael Mohammed, swore a Replying Affidavit on 15th July 2025, alleging that the Tenant was a habitual defaulter, in arrears for June and July 2025, and had become a nuisance to other tenants. He denied locking the premises, and averred that the Tenant had initially indicated that she would vacate on 6th July 2025
5.In the landlord’s written submissions dated 29th August 2025, the Landlord reiterated that the Tenant had not paid rent for June, July, and August 2025 and submitted that she was undeserving of protection from the Tribunal.
6.The Tenant’s written submissions restated her case that she had been harassed and unlawfully locked out of the premises.
7.On 16th July 2025,, this Tribunal made an interlocutory pronouncement declaring the notice to vacate dated 26th May 2025 as illegal.
B. Issues For Determination And Analysis
8.The following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the Tenant is entitled to the orders sought in the application dated 4th July 2025.b.Who shall bear the costs of the application?
Issue (a) Whether the Tenant is entitled to the orders sought in the application dated 4th July 2025
8.The Tribunal has already declared the notice to vacate dated 26th May 2025 illegal for non-compliance with Section 4 of Cap 301. Section 4(2) expressly provides:
9.In Maranga v Maina (Tribunal Case E1185 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 29, the Tribunal held:
10.Similarly, in Kuria v Karanja & another (Tribunal Case E1142 of 2023) [2023] KEBPRT 198, it was held that:
11.Guided by the above authorities, this Tribunal finds that the Landlord’s notice of 26th May 2025 was invalid, and any closure of the premises constituted unlawful self-help.
12.On the issue of rent arrears, the Landlord alleges that the Tenant was a rent defaulter. However, he has not provided documentary proof of the alleged arrears. The Tenant, on the other hand, produced evidence of rent payments.
13.The Tribunal also notes that the Tenant demonstrated that the premises were locked at the beginning of July 2025, restricting her access and ability to fully conduct business. In line with equity and fairness, the Tribunal finds that the Tenant shall only be liable to pay half the rent for July 2025. For the remaining months, the Tenant remains under obligation to promptly pay full rent.
14.Accordingly, the allegation of habitual default is not substantiated.
15.The Landlord, however, remains at liberty to issue a proper notice under Cap 301 should he wish to terminate or alter the tenancy, provided he strictly complies with the law.
Issue (b) Who shall bear the costs of the application?
16.Under Section 12(1)(k) of Cap 301, costs are at the Tribunal’s discretion. The general rule is that costs follow the event. Having succeeded in proving that the notice was invalid and in obtaining reliefs, the Tenant is entitled to costs.
C. Final Orders
16.In conclusion, the following final orders commend to us; -a.The notice dated 26th May 2025 issued by the Landlord is hereby declared illegal, invalid, and of no consequence.b.The tenant’s application dated 4th July 2025 is allowed as prayed.c.The Tenant shall pay half the rent for July 2025, in recognition of the closure period, and full rent for all other months falling due thereafter.d.The Landlord has liberty to issue a proper notice under Cap 301 should it wish to terminate the tenancy.e.Costs of KES. 30,000 awarded to the tenant/applicant to be offset against the rent account.f.The reference dated 4th July 2025 is settled in terms.It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH SEPTEMBER 2025HON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON GAKUHI CHEGE - (MEMBER)In the presence of :Ms. Oketch for the TenantNyambura holding brief for Ms Waitere for Landlord