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 AllowedNakuru BPRT Appeal (Naivasha ELC) – appeal from Nakuru BPRT Case No. E093 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 917 (KLR)

Macharia v Muturi (Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 917 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 February 2026
MOM.C. Oundo
5,599 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that once a lease ends by mutual agreement, the Rent Tribunal loses jurisdiction and disputes belong in civil courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, Luka Mwangi Macharia, appealed against a ruling of the Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Hon. Mike Makori, Member) delivered on 30th May 2025, which had granted the Tenant, Francis Karugu Muturi, conservatory orders restraining interference with his movable goods, fixtures and fittings on Plot No. 145, Naivasha, and directed a joint valuation within thirty days. The appeal was unopposed, the Respondent having neither entered appearance nor filed submissions, but the court decided it on its merits. The Appellant raised two issues: whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and whether it could disregard the parties' termination agreement dated 12th April 2023. The court, as the first appellate court, reappraised the matter and found that the lease had been terminated by mutual consent under the 12th April 2023 agreement, which also provided a self-executing mechanism for valuation or removal of the Tenant's fixtures. Relying on Pritam v Ratilal and Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, the court held that a subsisting controlled tenancy under Section 2 of Cap 301 is a condition precedent to the Tribunal's jurisdiction; once the tenancy was terminated, the dispute became an ordinary contractual matter for the civil courts and the Tribunal became functus officio. The court did not address the remaining issues. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's orders of 30th May 2025 set aside, and costs awarded to the Appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the BPRT had jurisdiction over a dispute arising after termination of the lease by mutual agreement

Holding

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction; the 12th April 2023 termination agreement replaced the lease and converted the dispute into an ordinary contractual matter for the civil courts

Reasoning

The termination agreement expressly ended the lease and provided a self-executing mechanism for valuation or removal of fixtures. A controlled tenancy as defined in Section 2 of Cap 301 must subsist for the Act to apply. Disputes about enforcing a settlement are matters of contract law, not tenancy law, and fall to the civil courts. Applying Pritam v Ratilal and Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', the Tribunal's proceedings were without lawful authority.

p. 10
02

Whether the Tribunal could disregard the parties' termination agreement

Holding

Not decided; the court declined to reach the second issue after finding want of jurisdiction

Reasoning

Having found the BPRT lacked jurisdiction, the court held it unnecessary to determine whether the Tribunal erred in ordering a joint valuation contrary to the parties' contractual removal clause, nor to consider the merits of the injunction and valuation prayers.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a lease is terminated by mutual settlement agreement, the landlord-tenant relationship governed by Cap 301 ceases and the Tribunal loses jurisdiction over disputes arising under the settlement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The orders of the BPRT issued and/or delivered on 30th May 2025 are set aside
  3. 3.The Appellant shall have the costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 23(3), 40, 48, 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 7, 63(c), 78
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)Section 2(1), Section 12
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 & 2; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Auctioneers RulesRule 10

Cases cited (9)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lilian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 Others
    [2021] KESC 39 (KLR)
  • Republic v Business Premises Rent Tribunal & Another ex Parte Albert Kigera Karume
    [2015] eKLR
  • Re Hebtulla Properties Ltd
    (1979) KLR 96; [1976-80] 1 KLR 1195
  • Serem v Bett
    Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2019 [2023] KEHC 17698 (KLR)
  • J N N (a Minor) M N M suing as next friend v Naisula Holdings Limited t/a N School
    [2018] KEHC 8304 (KLR)
  • Paramount Bank Limited vs. First National Bank Limited & 2 Others
    (Civil Appeal 468 of 2018) [2023] KECA 1424 (KLR)
  • John Mugo Ngunga vs. Margaret M. Murangi
  • Pritam vs Ratilal & Another
    (1972) EA 560
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Nakuru)
E093 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301); Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia v Muturi (Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2025)  (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nakuru BPRT Appeal (Naivasha ELC) – appeal from Nakuru BPRT Case No. E093 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/917/eng@2026-02-19

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