Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in extract (originating plaint dated 27.1.2020, amended 23.6.2022)· [2024] KEELC 6374 (KLR)

Anupi Fashions Limited v Mwea Rice Mills Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 17 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6374 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 September 2024
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
941 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court halted a tenant's damages suit because rent disputes over business premises must first be resolved by the Rent Tribunal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a controlled tenant at Leader House, Shop A (LR. No. 209/590) owned by the 1st defendant and managed by the 2nd defendant, sued for general, aggravated, exemplary and special damages of Kshs 1,108,227.80 following an alleged unlawful distress for rent of Kshs 660,000 on 24.1.2020 and an alleged unlawful eviction on 25.1.2020. The plaintiff contended the distress and eviction occurred without leave of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal while its reference, BPRT Case No. 1047 of 2019, opposing a termination notice was pending. The defendants admitted re-entry and distress but maintained these were lawful exercises of the landlord's rights after the plaintiff defaulted on increased rent, and that no BPRT leave was required. Both parties closed their cases after hearing one witness each, and a judgment date was fixed for 26.9.2024. However, relying on the preamble of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act and the Court of Appeal's decision in Dhirajlal J. Shah & another v Vijay Amritlal Shethia, the court held that disputes arising from landlord and tenant dealings over structures are exclusively vested in the BPRT under section 12 of the Act. Since the plaintiff had itself activated the statutory mechanism under section 6 by filing the BPRT reference, which remains pending, the court found it premature to deliver judgment. The orders directing delivery of judgment and the proceedings of 14.7.2023 were set aside, and the matter stayed pending the BPRT's determination. No costs order was stated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the BPRT over disputes concerning controlled tenancies

Holding

Disputes arising from the landlord and tenant relationship in relation to structures are exclusively within the BPRT's mandate under section 12 of the Act

Reasoning

The court relied on the preamble of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act and the Court of Appeal's construction in Dhirajlal J. Shah, holding that the Act specifically governs landlord-tenant relationships over structures and vests exclusive jurisdiction in the BPRT, to which the plaintiff had already submitted.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit should be stayed pending the BPRT reference

Holding

Yes; the matter must await determination of the pending BPRT case before the court can proceed

Reasoning

The plaintiff had itself filed BPRT Case No. 1047 of 2019 which remains pending. Having activated the statutory mechanism under section 6, the plaintiff ought to await its determination. Even the alleged eviction would ultimately turn on the validity of the termination notice, a matter within the BPRT's purview.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The mandate to resolve disputes arising from landlord and tenant dealings in relation to structures on land is exclusively vested in the BPRT under section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act
  • Where a party has activated the statutory dispute resolution mechanism under section 6 of the Act, the party ought to await its determination before pursuing court proceedings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Orders directing delivery of judgment set aside
  2. 2.Proceedings of 14.7.2023 set aside
  3. 3.Matter stayed awaiting determination of BPRT Case No. 1047 of 2019

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) ActPreamble; section 6; section 12

Cases cited (4)

  • Dhirajlal J. Shah & another v Vijay Amritlal Shethia
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kingfisher Properties Limited v Nandlal Jivraj Shah & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Bahari (T) Company Limited v Alibhai Ramji Investment Limited
    (Civil Appeal 51 of 2020) [2023] KECA 1284 (KLR) (27 October 2023)
  • BPRT Case No.1047/2019: Anupi Fashions Limited v Mwea Rice Mills Ltd
    BPRT Case No. 1047 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Exclusive jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, section 12; stay pending BPRT determination under section 6 of the Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Anupi Fashions Limited v Mwea Rice Mills Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 17 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6374 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in extract (originating plaint dated 27.1.2020, amended 23.6.2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6374/eng@2024-09-26

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