Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCL Appeal No. E109 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 4530 (KLR)

Mwangi v Mungai & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E109 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4530 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 July 2026
MKMohammed N. Kullow
1,978 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court upheld a Tribunal ruling that a landlord-tenant relationship must be proven before rent disputes can proceed, dismissing the appeal with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, Samuel Irungu Mwangi, appealed to the Environment and Land Court against a ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Hon. Gad Chemoiyai) in Tribunal Case No. E224 of 2025, which struck out his Reference after finding that no landlord–tenant relationship existed between him and the Respondents, thereby depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal misdirected itself on the tenancy question and that its reliance on an inspection report, which was not furnished to him despite his request, breached Section 12(3) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act and his right to a fair hearing. The 2nd Respondent countered that all parties participated in the inspection, were informed the report had been filed and disclosed, and had ample time to obtain and respond to it, so any failure was attributable to the Appellant's inaction. A stay-of-execution application filed with the appeal was withdrawn at directions. Framing a single issue on whether the Tribunal erred in finding no tenancy and declining jurisdiction, the Court, guided by Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. on the first appellate duty of re-evaluation, held that jurisdiction is conferred by statute, that the Tribunal was obliged to determine the disputed tenancy first, and that it properly did so on the pleadings, affidavits and inspection report. The Court found no procedural unfairness because the Appellant never applied for the report or leave to respond during the adjourned period. The appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal's ruling and orders upheld, and costs awarded against the Appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Tribunal erred in finding no landlord–tenant relationship and declining jurisdiction

Holding

The Tribunal properly addressed the jurisdictional issue by considering the pleadings, affidavits and the inspection report; the appeal fails on this ground

Reasoning

The Court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated the record and found the Tribunal's conclusion that the Appellant was not in occupation, and hence that no tenancy existed, was supported by the inspection report. The Tribunal was statutorily obliged to determine the tenancy question first before exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act, and did so.

p. 8
02

Whether reliance on an inspection report not furnished to the Appellant breached his right to a fair hearing

Holding

No procedural unfairness was established; the Appellant did not apply for production of the report or seek leave to respond despite notice and time to do so

Reasoning

Although the proviso to Section 12(3) requires the report to be communicated to the landlord or tenant, the parties were informed the inspection had been conducted and the matter stood over until 3rd June 2025. The Appellant made no application for the report or to respond, and the record shows the Tribunal declined no such request.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction is conferred by statute and not by the parties or their pleadings; where the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, the Tribunal must first determine that issue before embarking on the substantive dispute
  • Under Section 12(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, the Tribunal has power to determine whether or not any tenancy is a controlled tenancy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.The ruling and orders of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal made on 3rd June 2025 in BPRT Case No. E224 of 2025 are upheld
  3. 3.The Appellant shall bear the costs of this Appeal
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case No. E224 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwangi v Mungai & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E109 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4530 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL Appeal No. E109 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4530/eng@2026-07-15

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