Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedBPRT Appeal (record not expressly numbered in judgment)· [2025] KEELC 8584 (KLR)

Abbdille v Ndungi (Environment and Land Appeal E176 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8584 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 December 2025
JKJ G Kemei
2,497 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

#

A Kenyan landlord cannot bypass a head tenant by collecting rent directly from subtenants without first issuing statutory notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court (Nairobi) against a ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 17/10/2024 in BPRT No E215 of 2024, in which the appellant's reference and Notice of Motion dated 14/2/2024 were dismissed. The appellant, a head tenant who had occupied the suit premises L R No 209/2412 since 2008 and claimed to have invested Kshs 30 Million in renovations, sublet exhibition stalls to subtenants. Following a 2022 split of the premises between the estate of Gathumbi Komu (part A) and the estate of James Samuel Gichuru (part B, represented by the respondent), the appellant split his rent between the two owners. In January 2024 the respondent notified occupants of part B that an agent, Benson Mathu, would collect rent from them directly. The appellant argued this altered the terms of the controlled tenancy contrary to Cap 301 and infringed his rights as head tenant. The respondent denied any tenancy relationship with the appellant and argued the appeal was moot as he had vacated. J G Kemei J, applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd, held that while a landlord may appoint an agent, demanding rent directly from the head tenant's subtenants exceeded the implied terms of the controlled tenancy and amounted to an alteration of terms requiring notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301, describing it as a disguised takeover. The injunctive application was rendered moot by the determination of the main appeal. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's ruling and consequential orders were set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether appointing an agent to collect rent directly from subtenants altered the controlled tenancy

Holding

Yes - it exceeded the implied terms of the tenancy between landlord and head tenant and breached Section 4(2) of Cap 301

Reasoning

The court held that a landlord may lawfully appoint an agent, but where subtenants exist, the agent should deal with the head tenant. Demanding rent from subtenants goes beyond the implied terms of the controlled tenancy and amounts to an alteration of terms requiring statutory notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301. The court characterised the move as a disguised takeover of the premises without lawful compliance.

p. 5
02

Whether the appeal was moot because the appellant had left the premises

Holding

No - the court proceeded to determine the appeal on its merits

Reasoning

The respondent argued the appeal was overtaken by events since the appellant was no longer in occupation. The court did not accept this and went on to allow the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's decision, treating the rights of a head tenant/sublandlord as deserving of determination.

p. 5
03

The appellate court's duty on an appeal from the Tribunal

Holding

The court reconsidered and evaluated the evidence for itself as the first appellate court

Reasoning

Relying on Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd, the court reiterated that a first appellate court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it and draw its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A landlord's appointment of an agent with instructions to collect rent directly from a head tenant's subtenants, without issuing notices under Section 4(2) of Cap 301, amounts to an unlawful alteration of a controlled tenancy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal succeeds
  2. 2.The Ruling and decision of Hon Andrew Muma, Member of BPRT, delivered on 17/10/24 in BPRT No E215 of 2024, and all consequential orders, are set aside
  3. 3.Costs shall be in favour of the appellant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)Section 2
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)Section 4(1), (2), (3), (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others
    EA 123
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
BPRT No E215 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the BPRT decision under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abbdille v Ndungi (Environment and Land Appeal E176 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8584 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). BPRT Appeal (record not expressly numbered in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8584/eng@2025-12-09

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