Mutura v Kagombe (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5089 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a landlord's lease non-renewal notice is valid if it substantially follows the legal form, even with wording differences.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Did the Respondent issue a proper notice to the Appellant to vacate the suit property?
- 2.Is the Appellant entitled to the orders sought?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's notice dated 12th March, 2023 was a defective termination notice for non-compliance with Section 4(2) of Cap 301 (Form A)
The notice was a valid notice of non-renewal of lease substantially complying with Section 4 of Cap 301; it stated the reason (non-renewal) and gave the requisite two months' notice under Section 4(4)
The court held that privileging exact wording of Form A would elevate technicalities over merits contrary to Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. Relying on Abeid v Badbes and Saheb v Hassanally (Section 72, Interpretation and General Clauses Act), deviations not affecting substance do not invalidate a notice. The notice disclosed the reason and gave over two months' notice.
Whether the appeal should succeed against the BPRT's decision
The appeal lacked merit; the BPRT's findings that the notice was valid were upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs
Guided by the duty of a first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence, the court found no misdirection in the tribunal's conclusion that the tenant's reference was filed out of time under Section 4(5) and that the landlord's notice was valid. The lease expired by effluxion of time on 30th June, 2023 and could not be extended by implication after an express non-renewal notice.
Legal principles established
#- A tenancy notice need not reproduce Form A verbatim; substantial compliance with the Act suffices, and deviations not affecting the substance do not void the notice
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence and reach its own conclusions
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The decision of the BPRT issued on 31st July, 2023 is upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
- BPRT No. E571 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the BPRT orders
The court found the Respondent's notice of non-renewal of lease valid and compliant with Section 4(4) of Cap 301
Costs in the lower court and the appeal to the Appellant
Costs were awarded to the Respondent
Costs
Appeal dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, this Court finds and holds that the Appeal herein is not merited, and the same is dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondent. Further, the court upholds the decision of the BPRT issued on 31st July, 2023.
this Court holds and finds that is no substantial or misleading departure from the wording in the prescribed Form A, that would render invalid the Respondent’s Notice of non-renewal of lease dated 12th March, 2023.
In order to be efiective in this fashion, the Act must be construed strictly no matter how harsh the result
any document which purports to be in a prescribed form shall not be void by reason of any deviation therefrom which does not afiect the substance of the document, or which is not calculated to mislead
the appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by the trial Court, unless they were based on no evidence at all, or on a misapprehension of it, or the trial Court is shown demonstrably to have acted on wrong principles in reaching its findings
Issues in the judgment
#The court attributes the quotation on interfering with appellate discretion to the Supreme Court of Kenya, yet the citation is a [2019] eKLR decision; the passage itself refers to interfering with 'the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion', suggesting a misattribution of forum.
Respondent's case name appears inconsistently as both 'Katsuri Limited' and 'Kasturi Limited' in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kirui v Kirui (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7295 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7295 (KLR)23 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutura v Kagombe (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). BPRT Appeal (Murang'a ELC) – Memo of Appeal dated 30th August, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5089/eng@2024-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.