Amuga v Ripple Matrix Properties Limited (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6753 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a tenant's rent bill by rejecting inflated floor measurements and striking out an unexplained rent escalation order imposed by the tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lettable area
The Tribunal erred by ignoring the joint measurements report and increasing the lettable area to 404 square feet; the lettable area is 304 square feet
The Tribunal had ordered a joint measurement after contradicting measurements were submitted. The joint report dated 13th October 2021, signed by valuers for both parties, put the lettable area at 304 square feet and apportioned the shared reception. Ignoring this report and adding 100 square feet for common areas, already accounted for, was without basis.
Rate per square foot
The Tribunal's assessment of the rate was a proper exercise of discretion and is not disturbed
The Tribunal explained its basis, having found the tenant's comparables unsatisfactory and adopting rents paid by other tenants in the demised premises per the landlord's report. No error of principle or reliance on extraneous material was established, so the appellate court will not interfere.
Backdating of rent
The backdating to 1st December 2020 was proper, as the landlord's notice proposed alteration from that date
It was part of the Tribunal's mandate to determine when the altered rent was payable. The landlord's notice proposed the increase effective 1st December 2020 and the Tribunal agreed with the landlord. The tenant did not submit on the issue before the Tribunal.
Escalation clause
The order for rent escalation of 10% every two years was set aside as it was not prayed for and its basis was not explained
The landlord's notice did not notify any intention to escalate rent every two years; the issue was not canvassed before the Tribunal, and the Vice-chair did not explain the basis for the 10% rate every two years, amounting to an arbitrary exercise of discretion.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court should not interfere with an exercise of judicial discretion unless an error in the exercise of discretion, a wrong principle, or extraneous/irrelevant material is shown
- A joint valuation report signed by valuers representing both parties should form the basis of the tribunal's determination of the lettable area
- A tribunal's discretionary order made without any prayer and without explanation of its basis is an arbitrary exercise of discretion
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed only on the finding on the lettable area (reduced to 304 square feet) and on the setting aside of the escalation clause
- 2.Rent reassessed at 304 square feet at Kshs. 90 per square foot, with effect from 1st December 2020 (as printed, '1st December, 1990')
- 3.Tribunal's order on the escalation clause of 10% every two years set aside
- 4.Order awarding the Landlord costs of Kshs. 20,000/- in regard to the Reference set aside
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs on both the appeal and the reference
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
- BPRT Case No. 912 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 15(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap. 301; Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act (appellate jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amuga v Ripple Matrix Properties Limited (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6753 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). BPRT Case No. 912 of 2020 (appeal against ruling of 21st December 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6753/eng@2024-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.