Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Appeal No. 46 of 2018· [2020] KEELC 2613 (KLR)

Stephen Atallo Nyamanga v Anchor Investment Limited (Environment and Land Appeal 46 of 2018) (Environment and Land) [2020] KEELC 2613 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 May 2020
1,791 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that rent tribunals can fairly split the difference between landlords' and tenants' rent valuations.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi against a judgment of the Chairperson of the Business Premises Tribunal (Hon. Mochache D) delivered on 8th February 2013 in BPRT Case No. 443 of 2012, dismissing the appellant tenant's Reference opposing a landlord's notice increasing rent on Fatima Court Flat No. 38 on LR No. 1/822 Argwings Kodhek Road, Nairobi from Kshs. 25,000 to Kshs. 55,000. The Tribunal had instead assessed a standard rent of Kshs. 41,000 by averaging the tenant's valuer's figure of Kshs. 28,000 and the landlord's valuer's figure of Kshs. 48,000, effective 1st September 2012. The appellant raised six grounds, principally that the Chairperson erred in adopting her own average rather than the valuers' figures and in ordering retrospective application of her orders. The court framed three issues and, canvassed on written submissions, held that section 12(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301) empowered the Tribunal to determine or vary rent having regard to all circumstances, and that averaging the parties' proposals after considering both valuation reports was a proper exercise of discretion, consistent with East African Seeds Company Limited v Kaushik M Shah & another. On the effective date, the court found that section 9(1)(a) permitted the Tribunal to vary the terms of a tenancy notice including the date it takes effect, and that the Chairperson reasonably construed the landlord's delay in filing its valuation report against it, following Sadhu & Another v Vadgama Garage & Anor. The appeal was found unmerited and dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Tribunal erred in averaging the valuers' rent figures instead of adopting either valuation report

Holding

No error; the Tribunal lawfully exercised its discretion under section 12(1)(b) of Cap 301

Reasoning

Section 12(1)(b) empowers the Tribunal to determine or vary rent having regard to all circumstances. The Chairperson considered both valuation reports, noted the landlord's report contained comparable lettings, and adopted an average of the parties' proposals. The court associated itself with Obaga J's decision in East African Seeds v Kaushik M Shah, where a similar averaging approach was upheld, and found the rent not exorbitant.

p. 2
02

Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the effective date of the increased rent

Holding

No error; the Tribunal properly varied the effective date under section 9(1)(a)

Reasoning

Section 9(1)(a) allows the Tribunal to approve a tenancy notice subject to such amendment as it thinks just having regard to all circumstances. Although the notice issued in April 2012, the Tribunal set the effective date at 1st September 2012, construing the landlord's delay in filing its valuation report (August 2012) against it. Following Sadhu v Vadgama Garage, the Tribunal may vary the date from which a notice takes effect.

p. 3
03

Whether the appeal is merited

Holding

The appeal is unmerited and was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

Both grounds of attack on the Tribunal judgment failed. The Chairperson acted within her statutory discretion on rent assessment and the effective date. No error in law or fact was demonstrated, so the appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 12(1)(b) of Cap 301, the Tribunal may determine or vary rent for a controlled tenancy having regard to all circumstances, and may properly adopt an average of the parties' valuers' proposals after considering the valuation reports.
  • Under section 9(1)(a) of Cap 301, the Tribunal has power to vary the terms of a tenancy notice including the date from which it takes effect.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
BPRT Case No. 443 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal from the Business Premises Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Atallo Nyamanga v Anchor Investment Limited (Environment and Land Appeal 46 of 2018)  (Environment and Land) [2020] KEELC 2613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Appeal No. 46 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2613/eng@2020-05-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.