Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELC 5109 (KLR)

Muhembeli v Limo & 3 others (Environment & Planning Appeal E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5109 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 July 2025
4,229 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Owning a property doesn't make you its tenants' landlord in Kenya — you must show a tenancy agreement or rent payments before a rent tribunal can help you.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Winlord Muhembeli appealed the judgment of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Kakamega delivered on 24th November 2022 in Tribunal Cases E090, E091 and E092 of 2022, which had declared his termination notices to three tenants on Plot No. 78B Mbale Market invalid, found Moses Munubi Endeheli to be the bona fide landlord, restrained him from interfering with the tenants' quiet occupation, and awarded costs of Kshs. 75,000 to the tenants and a sum to Moses Munubi. The appellant claimed ownership of the plot through succession proceedings (Kakamega Succession Cause No. 889 of 2013) and sought rent and eviction. The ELC, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated the evidence and framed two issues: whether the appellant was entitled to rent and eviction absent a tenancy agreement or receipt of rent, and whether the costs award warranted interference. Applying section 2 of Cap 301, the court held that landlord status depends on entitlement to rents and profits under tenancy terms, not ownership; the appellant had no tenancy agreements with the tenants and had never received rent from them, so he was not their landlord. Title and legality-of-acquisition questions belong to the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, not the Tribunal. On costs, applying Mbogo v Shah, the court found no misdirection and declined to interfere. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellant, claiming ownership, could claim rent and eviction without a tenancy agreement or receipt of rent

Holding

He could not; landlord status derives from entitlement to rents and profits under tenancy terms, not ownership

Reasoning

Section 2 of Cap 301 defines landlord as the person entitled to rents and profits payable under the terms of the tenancy, and tenancy as a lease or sublease agreement. Ownership is not a consideration for landlord-tenant relationship. Having never entered a tenancy agreement nor received rent, the appellant was not a landlord and could not lawfully claim rent or eviction.

p. 6
02

Tribunal's jurisdiction over ownership disputes

Holding

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over title questions, which lie with the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act

Reasoning

Section 12 of Cap 301 confines the Tribunal to landlord-tenant disputes: controlled tenancies, rent, service charge, possession, repairs, distress, compensation and costs. Ownership of title and legality of property acquisition are within the ELC's mandate as delineated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

p. 7
03

Whether the tribunal's award of costs was exorbitant and should be disturbed

Holding

No; costs are discretionary under section 12(1)(k) and no misdirection was shown

Reasoning

Relying on Mbogo v Shah, the court will not interfere with discretionary decisions of inferior tribunals unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong or based on a misdirection. The awards of Kshs. 75,000 to the tenants and Kshs. 35,000 to the 4th respondent were not exorbitant in current economic times and no irrelevant or ignored relevant matters were demonstrated.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Landlord-tenant relationship is not premised on ownership; a claimant must prove entitlement to rents and profits under terms of a tenancy
  • Questions of ownership of title are for the Environment and Land Court, not the Rent Tribunal
  • An appellate court will not interfere with a tribunal's discretionary award of costs absent misdirection

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Kakamega
E090 of 2022, E091 of 2022 and E092 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (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, "Muhembeli v Limo & 3 others (Environment & Planning Appeal E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5109/eng@2025-07-02

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