Kabansora Limited v Roverland Auto Care Services Limited [2025] KEBPRT 245 (KLR)

Kabansora Limited v Roverland Auto Care Services Limited (Tribunal Case E782 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 245 (KLR) (8 April 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 245 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E782 of 2024

P Kitur, Member

April 8, 2025

Between

Kabansora Limited

Landlord

and

Roverland Auto Care Services Limited

Tenant

Judgment

A. Parties 1. Kabansora Limited, the Landlord/Applicant, is the registered proprietor of the premises known as LR No 209/2476, Lengetia House, located within Nairobi, Kenya (the suit premises)

2. The firm of Mutundu Wallace Advocates represents the Landlord.

3. Roverland Auto Care Services Limited, the Tenant/Respondent, occupies the aforementioned premises under a tenancy agreement.

4. The firm of Muturi S.K & Company Advocates represents the tenant.

B. The Dispute Background 5. The relationship between the parties was formalized through a lease agreement dated 30th March 2020. This agreement delineated the respective rights and obligations of both parties, thereby establishing a controlled tenancy as per the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301) (‘the Act’).

6. The tenancy proceeded without interruptions until 23rd July 2024, when the Landlord issued a termination notice, citing substantial breaches of the tenancy agreement by the Tenant as the grounds for termination.

7. The Tenant challenged the termination by filing a reference dated 5th August 2024 under Section 6 of the Act. However, this reference was procedurally flawed, having been filed within the same suit rather than as a separate matter, as required by the Act. Subsequently, the reference was withdrawn on 14th October 2024.

8. The Landlord thereafter filed a Complaint dated 24th September 2024.

9. Following the withdrawal, the Tenant submitted a notice of motion application dated 14th October 2024, seeking interim relief from the tribunal. The relief sought included restraining the Landlord from terminating the tenancy, levying distress for rent, evicting the Tenant from the suit premises, or otherwise interfering with the Tenant's quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises.

10. The parties, however, reached a consensus to compromise this application on 12th November 2024, thereby allowing the main suit to proceed.

11. The tribunal heard testimonies from both parties during proceedings on 18th February 2025. Upon conclusion of the hearings, the parties submitted written submissions as directed by the court. The tribunal is now duly tasked with rendering its determination on the matter.

C. List of Issues for Determination 12. In view of the above, the following issues arise for determination:-i.Whether the Reference dated 24th September 2024 is merited.ii.Whether the termination notice issued by the Landlord was valid and proper.

D. Analysis and Findings 13. The matter coming before this Tribunal for determination is the Complaint filed by the Landlord, against the Tenant. The primary grievance is that the Tenant has failed to vacate the suit premises despite being duly served with a termination notice, whose prescribed notice period has since elapsed. In resolving this dispute, the Tribunal’s focus will be directed toward assessing the validity of the termination notice, as this constitutes the pivotal issue in contention.

14. Section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301) sets out the statutory framework governing the termination of controlled tenancies. Among other mandatory requirements, the notice must be issued in the prescribed format, provide at least two months’ notice, and specify the grounds for termination.

15. This tenancy being controlled under the Act, the Landlord was obligated to comply with the provisions of Section 4(2) and Regulation 4(1) of the Act’s Regulations. Specifically, the notice was required to be issued in the prescribed format and supported by the grounds for termination outlined under Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, pursuant to Section 4(4), any such notice could only take effect upon the expiry of two clear calendar months.

16. In the case of Kasarani Investments Holdings Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited [2017] eKLR, the court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to statutory requirements in the issuance of termination notices. Any deviation from these provisions would render the notice invalid.

17. Upon review of the termination notice issued by the Landlord, dated 23rd July 2024, this Tribunal finds it to be in compliance with all statutory requirements. The notice adhered to the prescribed format, provided the requisite two-month period, and clearly stated the grounds for termination.

18. The legal principles governing termination notices have been firmly established, as illustrated in Manaver N. Alibhai T/A Diani Boutique v South Coast Fitness & Sports Centre Limited, Civil Appeal No 203 of 1994. The court in this case underscored that:“The Act lays down clearly and in detail the procedure for the termination of a controlled tenancy. Section 4(1) of the Act states in unequivocal terms that a controlled tenancy shall not terminate or be terminated, and no term or condition in, or right or service enjoyed by the tenant of, any such tenancy shall be altered, otherwise than in accordance with specified provisions of the Act. These provisions include the issuance of a notice in the prescribed form, specifying the grounds for termination, and ensuring the notice takes effect no earlier than two months from the date of receipt thereof by the tenant."

19. The Tenant’s reference challenging the notice, filed within this suit on 5th August 2024, was procedurally defective. Section 6 of the Act requires such a Reference to be filed as a separate suit on its own, and failure to do so renders such an attempt procedurally flawed and the opposition invalid.

20. In any event, the Tenant subsequently withdrew the defective reference on 14th October 2024, leaving the Landlord’s termination notice unchallenged. Furthermore, the Tenant’s application for injunctive relief, dated 14th October 2024, was compromised by consent between the parties on 12th November 2024, further affirming the validity of the notice.

21. Based on the foregoing analysis, this Tribunal finds the termination notice issued by the Landlord to be valid. The Tenant’s procedural missteps and withdrawal of opposition confirm the lack of merit in challenging the notice.

E. Orders 22. Accordingly, the tribunal upholds the termination notice and grants the following orders:-i.The Complaint dated 24th September 2024 is hereby allowed.ii.The termination notice issued by the Landlord on 23rd July 2024 is upheld as valid.iii.The Tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises located at LR No 209/2476, Lengetia House, to the Landlord on or before 30th April 2024 failure to which the Landlord shall be at liberty to break in and enter with the assistance of OCS Industrial Area Police Station or any other Police station close by.iv.This Ruling settles the Complaint dated 24th September 2024. v.Costs are awarded to the Landlord assessed at Kshs 35,000/=.

HON P. KITUR - MEMBERBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALRULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY BY HON P. KITUR THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PARTIES.