Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case No. E035 of 2012 (Appeal)· [2025] KEELC 588 (KLR)

Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited v Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group & another (Environment and Land Appeal 25 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 588 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 February 2025
MOM.C. Oundo
3,815 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's BPRT only protects genuine tenants: without a landlord-tenant relationship, even a long-term occupier loses the Tribunal's protection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha from a ruling of Hon. Cyprian Mugambi, Chairman of the Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal, dated 28th July 2023, in which the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's reference for want of jurisdiction, discharged interlocutory orders and awarded costs. The Appellant, a tenant of the 2nd Respondent, had sought injunction orders, a declaration that an eviction notice served by the 1st Respondent (the auction purchaser of the suit property, Gilgil/Township Block 2/210) was void, and protection as a controlled tenant under Cap 301. The 1st Respondent opposed, arguing the BPRT lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctions, that the Appellant was in trespass, and that related disputes had been settled in the High Court and litigated in Naivasha ELC No. 89 of 2024, which was struck out as res judicata. The single issue framed was whether the appeal was meritorious. The court applied Pritam vs Ratilal and related authorities, holding that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is a condition precedent to the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Cap 301; since the Appellant paid no rent to and was not recognized by the 1st Respondent, no controlled tenancy existed as against the 1st Respondent. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's holding, dismissed the appeal with costs to the 1st Respondent, and declined to accord the Appellant the protections of a controlled tenant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the reference in the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent

Holding

The Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction since the Appellant was not the 1st Respondent's tenant and paid no rent to it; the appeal was dismissed.

Reasoning

The court recounted that the 1st Respondent purchased the suit property at auction, obtained a certificate of lease, and never recognized the Appellant as tenant, there being no agreement whether implied or otherwise and no payment of rent to the 1st Respondent. Applying Pritam vs Ratilal, the relationship of landlord and tenant is a condition precedent to the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Cap 301. Where it does not exist, the Act does not apply and the Tribunal must down its tools.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is a precondition to the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under Cap 301

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Appeal to the 1st Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) ActCap 301; Section 2(1); Section 4(1),(2),(5),(12)
  • Land ActSection 96; Sections 142E; Sections 152E; Section 152G

Cases cited (10)

  • Caledonia Supermarket Ltd v Kenya National Examination Council
    (2000) 2 EA 351
  • South C Fruit Shop v Housing Finance Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & Another; Exparte Davies Motor Corporation Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Selle vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd.
    [1968] EA 123
  • Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & another Ex parte Albert Kigera Karume
    [2015] eKLR
  • John Mugo Ngunga vs. Margaret M. Murangi
  • Pritam vs. Ratilal and Another
    Nairobi HCCC No. 1499 of 1970 [1972] EA 560
  • Republic v Chairperson - Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi & Rosemary Wangari Chege Ex-Parte Suraj Housing & Properties Limited, Suraj Plaza Limited & Suraj Plaza Management Limited
    [2016] KEHC 4525 (KLR)
  • Almumin Advertising Limited v Kinuthia & another
    [2023] KEBPRT 711 (KLR)
  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) eKLR
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Nakuru
Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case No. E035 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited v Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group & another (Environment and Land Appeal 25 of 2024)  (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 588 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case No. E035 of 2012 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/588/eng@2025-02-13

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