Said v Trustees of King Feisal Trust of Kenya (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1220 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a tenant's 15-year challenge to a rent increase, confirming the landlord's written notice was lawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the tribunal erred in failing to give reasons for dismissing the application dated 12th May 2010
The court found no reasons were given in the ruling of 24th January 2022 and, applying Order 20 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, held the ruling should be set aside; however the court then considered the application afresh and reached the same result.
Order 20 Rule 4 requires judgments in defended suits to contain points for determination, the decision and the reasons. The tribunal's ruling stated only that the application was without merit. Applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in JMM v GNJ on the need to justify the exercise of discretion with reasons, the court found the failure to give reasons warranted setting aside the ruling. But since the court was seized of the matter as a first appeal, it proceeded to determine the application itself, concluding the appeal was unmerited.
Whether the tribunal lacked jurisdiction for want of ascertainment of the dominant user of the premises
The argument failed; the appellant occupies a flat and the premises were properly assessed for residential purposes, and the appellant did not object to the assessment.
The appellant contended the premises comprised 13 shops and 2 flats with business as the dominant user, so the Business Premises Rent Tribunal was the proper forum. The court noted the tribunal officers who visited the premises confirmed it was being used as a residence, the assessment was conducted in the appellant's presence without objection, and the appellant occupies one of the flats. The rent was ultimately increased beyond the assessed figure, rendering the assessment issue inconsequential.
Whether the notice of rent increase to Kshs.20,000/= was lawful
The notice of 12th March 2010 complied with section 13(2) of the Rent Restriction Act and was lawful.
Section 13(2) of the Rent Restriction Act provides that no rent increase is due or recoverable until the landlord serves a valid written notice of intention to increase the rent. The respondent notified the appellant on 12th March 2010 of the increase to Kshs.20,000/= with effect from 1st May 2010, and this was not disputed. The appellant never challenged the increase before the tribunal despite fifteen years having elapsed.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the tribunal and draw its own conclusions.
- Where a tribunal or court fails to give reasons for its decision, the appellate court will interfere if satisfied the order made is wrong.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal has no merit and is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the appeal
- On appeal from
- Rent Restriction Tribunal
- Rent Restriction Assessment Case No. 39 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Rent Restriction Tribunal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Said v Trustees of King Feisal Trust of Kenya (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (ELC Mombasa) - memorandum of appeal dated 17th February 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1220/eng@2025-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.