Wairiuko v Lumumba
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed you can be a landlord without holding the title deed, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a landlord-tenant relationship was established between the Appellant and Respondent
Yes - the Respondent's uncontroverted evidence established the Appellant as the person entitled to rents and profits, hence landlord.
The Respondent produced correspondence on tenancy matters, continuous occupation from 2018, rent payments to the Appellant's instructed agent (Sort Masters Investment Ltd), a KPLC account and billing statement in the Appellant's name, and a notice to vacate issued by the Appellant's agent. The Appellant did not controvert these facts; her title deed in a third party's name did not displace the relationship.
Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter
Yes - a controlled tenancy existed, satisfying the condition precedent, and Section 12(4) of Cap 301 empowered the Tribunal to hear the complaint.
Citing Pritam v Ratilal, the court held the landlord-tenant relationship is a precondition to the Act's application. Having found a controlled tenancy existed, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 12(4) to investigate complaints relating to controlled tenancies was properly engaged, and the Tribunal rightly affirmed its jurisdiction.
Whether the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought
No - grounds challenging the tenancy and jurisdiction were disallowed; the Tribunal's ruling was upheld.
The court found no basis to fault the Tribunal's finding that the Appellant was the landlord, and the Tribunal properly directed itself on the law and evidence. Grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were disallowed, as were grounds 2 and 4 on jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Ownership of premises is not determinative of landlord status under Cap 301; landlord is the person entitled to rents and profits as between the parties.
- Existence of a controlled tenancy is a condition precedent to a Tribunal's jurisdiction under Cap 301.
- A first appellate court interferes with a tribunal's decision only where it misapprehended evidence, applied wrong principles or misdirected its discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
- 2.The ruling and order of Hon Cyprian Mugambi Nguthari /Chairperson, Business premises tribunal in (tribunal case number BPRT /E447/2024 21.2.2025) is upheld.
- 3.The matter is referred back to the Business Premises Rent tribunal for the hearing and disposal of the pending reference and any pending matters not yet dealt with by the tribunal.
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Tribunal Case No. E447 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over appeals from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wairiuko v Lumumba", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Appeal E056 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6087/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.