Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutEnvironment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024· [2024] KEELC 7015 (KLR)

Kimani v Kiarie (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7015 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 October 2024
6,092 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a tenant's appeal because the law gives no automatic appeal right from a Rent Tribunal complaint—only from a formal reference.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant tenant filed a reference and application dated 24th August 2023 before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishment) Act (Cap 301), complaining of interference with his tenancy, including disconnection of electricity. The landlord filed a counterclaim. By consent the matters were canvassed by written submissions, and on 7th December 2023 the tribunal directed payment of rent as it fell due, payment of arrears of KES 15,000 by 10th December 2023, observance of due process in any termination, and that each party bear own costs. The tenant appealed to the Environment and Land Court by memorandum dated 5th January 2024, contending the tribunal erred in failing to award KES 834,200 for loss of profit, KES 142,000 for repairs and improvements, denying him a fair hearing, failing to order reconnection of electricity, and authorizing termination without regard to his investment. The court framed five issues. It held that Section 15 of Cap 301 confers a right of appeal only to parties to a reference under Section 6, not to a complainant under Section 12(4); the Appellant neither had an automatic right of appeal nor obtained leave under Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 Rule 1, rendering the appeal incompetent, premature and misconceived. On the merits, the loss of profit claim was unparticularised and unproven special damages outside the tribunal's remit; the repairs claim lacked evidence of the landlord's consent; the fair hearing complaint was baseless given the consent to written submissions; and the tribunal never authorized termination. The appeal was struck out with each party bearing own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the appeal under Section 15 of Cap 301

Holding

The appeal was incompetent as it arose from a Section 12(4) complaint, not a reference, and no leave to appeal was sought or obtained.

Reasoning

Section 15 confers a right of appeal only on parties to a reference, defined by Section 2 as a reference under Section 6 of the Act. The dispute before the tribunal was a complaint under Section 12(4). Leave to appeal, obtainable from the tribunal as a subordinate court, was never sought. The appeal was therefore premature, misconceived and void.

p. 6
02

Loss of profit claim

Holding

The tribunal did not err in refusing the claim; it was unpleaded special damages and beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Loss of profit is special damages requiring particularised pleading and strict proof. The reference merely averred loss of business without particulars. Moreover, the tribunal is a creature of statute whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 12(1), and such a claim lies only before a conventional court.

p. 9
03

Repairs and improvements claim

Holding

The claim failed for want of evidence of the landlord's consent.

Reasoning

Under Section 12(g) repairs are the landlord's mandate, and Section 12(l) allows compensation for improvements carried out with the landlord's consent. No consent or authority was tendered, and the Appellant bore the burden of proof under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act.

p. 10
04

Fair hearing

Holding

No breach of the right to a fair hearing was established.

Reasoning

The parties consented to canvass the reference, application and counterclaim by written submissions, so the Appellant forfeited the right to tender further evidence or call witnesses. His failure to join the virtual session on 16th November 2023 was due to his own connectivity problems and he never sought review before the tribunal.

p. 11
05

Alleged authorization of termination

Holding

The tribunal did not authorize termination of the tenancy.

Reasoning

Clause (iii) of the tribunal's judgment merely directed that due process of law be strictly followed should the landlord decide to terminate or alter the tenancy; it did not sanction termination or disregard the Appellant's investment.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A party to a complaint under Section 12(4) of Cap 301 has no automatic right of appeal to the ELC; only a party to a reference under Section 6 may appeal as of right under Section 15, and leave is required otherwise.
  • A right of appeal must be expressly conferred by statute and cannot be inferred or implied.
  • Special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is incompetent and misconceived.
  2. 2.The Appeal be and is hereby struck out.
  3. 3.Each party shall bear own costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Landlord and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishment) Act, Chapter 301 Laws of KenyaSections 2, 4(2), 6, 12(1), 12(4), 12(g), 12(l), 15(1)-(4)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 75
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 43 Rule 1
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 169
  • Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of KenyaSections 107, 108, 109

Cases cited (11)

  • Ferdinand Ndung'u Waititu v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC), Isaac Hassan (Returning Officer of the National Tallying Centre), Nairobi County Returning Officer, Evans Odhiambo Kidero, Jonathan Mueke, Attorney General, Divisional Commanding Officer (DCIO) Gigiri Police Station Nairobi, Divisional Commanding Officer (DCIO) Kayole Police Station Nairobi & Inspector General of the National Police Service
    (Civil Appeal 324 of 2013) [2014] KECA 615 (KLR) (Civ) (13 May 2014)
  • Hebtulla Properties Ltd v Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Nairobi & Electro Service & Equipment Ltd (Interested Party)
    (Miscellaneous Case 336 of 1978) [1979] KEHC 39 (KLR) (Civ) (21 March 1979)
  • Choitram v Mystery Model Hair Saloon
    [1972] EA 525
  • Superior Homes (Kenya) PLC v Water Resources Authority & 9 others
    (Civil Appeal E330 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1102 (KLR) (19 August 2024)
  • Coast Bus Services Ltd v. Murunga Danyi & 2 Others
    CA No. 192 of 1992
  • Peter Mark Gershom Ouma v Nairobi City Council
    (Civil Case 2149 of 1974) [1976] KEHC 3 (KLR) (Civ) (24 November 1976)
  • Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v John & Peter Hutchison
    [1905] AC 515
  • Ratcliffe v Evans
    (1892) 2 QB 524
  • Agnes Nyambura Munga (suing as the Executrix of the Estate of the late William Earl Nelson) v Lita Violet Shepard (sued in her capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of the Late Bryan Walter Shepard)
    [2018] eKLR
  • Miller vs Minister of Pensions
    (1947) ALL ER
  • D. T. Dobie & Company (K) Ltd vs Wanyonyi Wafula Chebukati
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Reference dated 24th August 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 15 of the Landlord & Tenants (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishment) Act, Chapter 301 Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani v Kiarie (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7015 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7015/eng@2024-10-24

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