Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNairobi BPRT Appeal - Memorandum of Appeal dated 15th November 2024 (from BPRT Case No. E311 of 2024)· [2025] KEELC 7404 (KLR)

Kang’ethe & Company Advocates v Nathe Holding Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E185 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7404 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 October 2025
TMT. MURIGI
2,526 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a tenant's appeal, confirming landlords can recover rent and pursue distress where rent remains unpaid.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appellate judgment of the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi, delivered by Hon. T. Murigi on 24th October 2025, dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the ruling of Hon. Makori in Nairobi BPRT Case No. E311 of 2024 delivered on 18th October 2024. The dispute arose from a notice to terminate tenancy dated 26th February 2024 on account of rent arrears of Kshs 9,153,884. The Tribunal had restrained eviction, ordered the Tenant to clear outstanding rent within 60 days, allowed distress for rent in default, and directed each party to bear its own costs. The Appellant argued that order (b) directing payment of 'current and/or outstanding rent' was vague and contradictory given the Tribunal's finding that the explanation of how arrears were cleared seemed plausible, and sought a declaration nullifying any distress for rent. The Respondent countered that the Tribunal later clarified on 7th November 2024 that rent of Kshs 90,000 per month fell due from March 2024, totalling Kshs 810,000. The court framed two issues: whether the BPRT order was vague or contradictory, and whether the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction by not assessing arrears. It held that the subsequent clarification cured any ambiguity in order (b), and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to value the Ngong properties transferred in settlement of arrears, that task belonging to the Environment and Land Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether order (b) of the BPRT judgment was vague or contradictory

Holding

Any ambiguity in the order was cured by the Tribunal's subsequent clarification of 7th November 2024 fixing the rent at Kshs 90,000 per month from March 2024 and the outstanding sum at Kshs 810,000.

Reasoning

The court noted that after judgment the appellant sought review, and on 7th November 2024 the Tribunal issued precise directions quantifying the rent due. The first appellate court held that this clarification cured the ambiguity arising from the general language of order (b), so setting it aside would cause injustice to the landlord.

p. 5
02

Whether the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction by not assessing rent arrears from 2015 onwards

Holding

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the value of the properties transferred in settlement of arrears; that question belongs to the Environment and Land Court.

Reasoning

The parties produced competing valuation reports of parcels Ngong/Ngong 90398 and 90397 transferred in settlement of rent. Determining whether arrears were settled required valuation, which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Rather than declining jurisdiction expressly, the Tribunal created ambiguity by speaking from both sides of its mouth.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the value of property transferred in settlement of rent, it should say so rather than issue ambiguous orders.
  • A tenant in arrears of rent does not deserve the court's discretion.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
Nairobi BPRT Case No. E311 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the BPRT decision (Memorandum of Appeal dated 15th November 2024)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kang’ethe & Company Advocates v Nathe Holding Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E185 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7404 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi BPRT Appeal - Memorandum of Appeal dated 15th November 2024 (from BPRT Case No. E311 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7404/eng@2025-10-24

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