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 (Homa Bay) - memorandum of appeal dated 3rd October 2022· [2024] KEELC 6361 (KLR)

Amito v Odiwuor (Environment and Land Appeal E047 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6361 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2024
1,673 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 renting bare land is not a 'controlled tenancy', so rent disputes over empty land belong in civil courts, not the Rent Tribunal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay against a ruling of Hon. J. S. Wesonga, PM, delivered on 30th September 2022 in Homa Bay CM ELC No. 89 of 2022, dismissing the 1st defendant's preliminary objection on jurisdiction. The underlying suit, brought by the plaintiff by plaint dated 21st July 2022, challenged the proclamation and attachment of his tools of trade in a distress for rent on land parcel Kanyada/Kotieno Katuma 'A'/2991 and sought declarations, injunctions and general damages. The appellant contended that the parties' relationship, founded on a five-year written lease dated 25th May 2021, was a controlled tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, so that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, not the subordinate court, had jurisdiction. The respondent, relying inter alia on ex parte Albert Kigera Karume, submitted that the dispute was one of breach of contract over a lease of bare land with no buildings, hence not a controlled tenancy. G. M. A. Ongondo, J, guided by Re Hebtulla Properties Ltd on the statutory limits of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, held that a lease of bare land is not a controlled tenancy within Section 2 of Cap 301, and that disputes over land leases fall outside the Tribunal's mandate. The trial magistrate was found to have applied correct principles, her ruling was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the suit or whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction

Holding

The trial court was properly seized; the dispute was over a land lease, not a tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment under Cap 301

Reasoning

The parties leased bare land parcel Kanyada/Kotieno Katuma 'A'/2991 with no buildings erected on it. A controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301 is a tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment. Rent was for the land itself, not business premises, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the civil court was the proper forum.

p. 2
02

Whether the lease was a controlled tenancy

Holding

No - the lease was in writing, for a term of five years, and related to bare land, so it fell outside the Section 2 definition

Reasoning

Section 2 defines a controlled tenancy as one of a shop, hotel or catering establishment that is unwritten, or written for a period not exceeding five years with termination provisions, or of a prescribed class. The agreement dated 25th May 2021 was for bare land; hence it was not a controlled tenancy and the Rent Restriction/Business Premises fora did not apply.

p. 4
03

Whether the appeal should be allowed

Holding

The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed; the trial magistrate's ruling was affirmed

Reasoning

The learned trial magistrate was guided by the evidence and applied correct principles of law in holding that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over land leases and that the suit was properly before the court. The appellate court found no reason to disturb the ruling.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Business Premises Rent Tribunal is a creature of statute and has only such jurisdiction as is specifically conferred on it by statute
  • Where the leased premises are bare land with no buildings, the tenancy is not a controlled tenancy under Cap 301 and the dispute belongs to the civil courts
  • On a first appeal, the court must reconsider the evidence with caution and reach its own independent conclusions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.Ruling of the trial magistrate dated 30th September 2022 dismissing the preliminary objection affirmed
On appeal from
Homa Bay Chief Magistrate's Court, Environment and Land Court
89 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction from the subordinate court over a ruling on a preliminary objection (first appeal from the trial court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amito v Odiwuor (Environment and Land Appeal E047 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6361 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Appeal (Homa Bay) - memorandum of appeal dated 3rd October 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6361/eng@2024-09-30

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