Maina v Administrators of the Estate of Bernard Odipo (Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 825 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a landlord's right to terminate a business tenancy because the tenant sublet the premises without consent, but rejected weaker, unproven grounds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the termination notice dated 9/8/2024
The notice complied with Section 4(2), 4(4) and 4(5) of Cap 301 and Regulation 4(1) and was valid.
The notice was expressed to be brought under Section 4(2), gave an effective date of 1/11/2024 (more than two months after receipt), specified the grounds for termination, and was in the prescribed form as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops forms and procedure) Regulations.
Repossession for personal use under Section 7(1)(g)
The Respondent failed to prove a firm and settled intention to occupy the premises for its own business; this ground was not proved.
The Act is protective of tenants, and the burden was on the landlord to establish an intention to occupy for not less than one year. The Tribunal made no finding on intention, and on review of the evidence the court was not satisfied that the Respondent established such a firm and settled intention.
Subletting without the landlord's consent
The Respondent proved subletting to three sub-tenants without consent, justifying termination under Section 7(1)(c).
Clause 5 of the Tenancy Agreement barred subletting. The Appellant's claim of having ventured into other businesses was unsupported, while the Respondent adduced the termination notices served on the three sub-tenants under Section 5(2) of the Act. The Tribunal's finding on this ground could not be faulted.
Alleged bypassing of electricity meters
The Respondent did not adduce evidence proving the alleged bypass; the ground was not proved.
Other than attaching the billing statement, no inspection report, technical evidence or KPLC witness was produced. Bypassing meters is a criminal offence under the Energy Act of 2019 and the Respondent had not reported it to the relevant authorities.
Reliance on the alleged order in BPRT Case No. 381 of 2014
The alleged order to vacate was not a ground for terminating the tenancy and there was no basis for referring to it.
The court held that the issue was not one of the grounds for termination and, especially since the order was not adduced in evidence before the Tribunal, no reliance could be placed on it.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court must re-analyse the case and draw its own independent conclusions on both fact and law.
- A tenancy notice complies with Cap 301 only if it is in the prescribed form, specifies grounds, and gives not less than two months' notice.
- The onus is on the landlord to establish a firm and settled intention to occupy premises sought for personal use under Section 7(1)(g).
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed as lacking in merit
- 2.Costs are awarded in favour of the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Reference dated 8/9/2024 (Chairperson: Hon. Joyce Akinyi Osodo); related BPRT Case No. 381 of 2014 mentioned
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First 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, "Maina v Administrators of the Estate of Bernard Odipo (Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (appeal from BPRT Reference dismissed 21/2/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/825/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.