Karanja v Karanja [2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR)

Karanja v Karanja (Tribunal Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR) (11 March 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 236 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E027 of 2024

P Kitur, Member

March 11, 2025

Between

Ann Wambui Karanja

Applicant

and

Samuel Mwangi Karanja

Respondent

Ruling

A. Parties 1. The Applicant is a businessperson operating a workshop on the portion of land adjacent to the premises located at Embu Municipality Plot Number 1649.

2. The firm of Dennis Kariuki & Company Advocates represents the Applicant.

3. The Respondent is the registered proprietor of the parcel of land located at Embu Municipality 1649 (the suit property).

4. The firm of Rose Migwi & Company Advocates represents the Respondent.

B. The Dispute Background 5. The Applicant asserts that she has occupied the portion of land adjacent to the suit premises since 1997, conducting her workshop business without interruption. This occupation continued until the Respondent served her with a notice to terminate the tenancy, intending to evict her from the premises. The Respondent's reason for terminating the tenancy was his intention to develop the premises for his own benefit.

6. The Applicant filed a reference dated 12th April 2024 under section 6 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotel and Catering Establishments) Act Cap 301 Laws of Kenya (the Act) opposing the notice of termination issued by the Respondent. The Applicant sought this tribunal's determination on the matter.

7. Subsequently, the Applicant filed two separate applications, seeking orders from this tribunal to restrain the Respondent from evicting her from the suit premises or otherwise interfering with her occupation of the premises. However, both applications were later withdrawn.

8. The matter then proceeded to the hearing of the Reference. The parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions, and the court directed them to file their respective documents accordingly.

9. The Respondent's position is that the Applicant's eviction is necessitated by the desire to develop the property. The Respondent asserts that he is the registered proprietor of the suit premises and had, out of good faith, allowed the Applicant to operate her business there without any payment of rent. The Respondent has now secured all necessary approvals to proceed with the development of the property, justifying the need to evict the Applicant.

10. Further, the Respondent contends that the nature of the Applicant's business allows for an easy relocation without causing substantial disruption. The Respondent also emphasized his constitutional right to property, alleging that the Applicant's actions amount to an infringement of this right. Additionally, the Respondent characterized the Applicant as someone attempting to unjustly benefit without contributing, describing her as a "leech" seeking to frustrate the landlord by filing the present reference.

11. Consequently, the Respondent prays that the Applicant's reference be found without merit and be dismissed.

12. The Applicant contends that the Reference was filed in opposition to the Termination Notice on several grounds. Firstly, the Applicant argues that there exists no agreement between the parties to justify the issuance of such notice. The Applicant further asserts that the suit premises are owned by the county government and, thus, do not constitute a controlled tenancy, rendering the Landlord without legal and legitimate standing to issue the notice. Additionally, the Applicant maintains that since no rent was received by the Landlord from the Applicant, the Landlord lacks the mandate to issue the notice.

13. Moreover, the Applicant claims that the subject matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal as no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties, a prerequisite for conferring jurisdiction upon the tribunal. To support this argument, the Applicant cited relevant case law. On these grounds, the Applicant prayed that the court finds the notice issued by the Respondent to be invalid and illegal, and that the purported eviction to be null and void.

C. List of Issues for Determination 14. In light of the above, it is my considered view that the main issues for determination are:-i.Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter.ii.Whether the reference dated 12th April 2024 is merited.

D. Analysis and Findings 15. First, it is important to determine whether or not this tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to handle the instant suit before proceeding to investigate the reference. It is a well settled principle of law that jurisdiction is fundamental to the authority of a court to hear and determine cases. Without proper jurisdiction, any decisions or orders issued by a court are null and void.

16. It is noteworthy that the Applicant, who filed a reference to this tribunal to oppose the notice to terminate tenancy, is the same party questioning the tribunal's jurisdiction to handle the matter. Regardless, the tribunal must first address the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to determine the reference.

17. It is undisputed that there is no agreement, written or otherwise, concerning the tenancy between the parties. Additionally, there is no payment of rent from the Applicant to the Respondent for the occupation of the suit premises. Both parties concur that there is no tenancy relationship between them. Considering the totality of the circumstances of this case, it is my view that no landlord-tenant relationship has been demonstrated. Thus, the jurisdiction of this tribunal is called into question.

18. This Tribunal exercises jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving landlord and tenant relationships pertaining to business premises. Established under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, Laws of Kenya, its authority is defined under Section 12 of the Act.

19. When it is established that no landlord-tenant relationship subsists between the parties, the court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter. This principle is drawn from the case of Pritam v Ratilal & another (1972) EA where it was held that;-“Therefore, the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant is pre-requisite to the application of the provisions of the Act. Where such a relationship does not exist or it has come to or been brought to an end, the provisions of the Act will not apply. The applicability of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal; otherwise the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction. There must be a controlled tenancy as defined under Section 2 to which the provisions of the Act can be made to apply. Outside it, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction”.

20. Without jurisdiction, this tribunal is precluded from addressing any other issues raised by the parties in this matter. This principle is grounded in the understanding that a court without jurisdiction lacks the legal authority to adjudicate or render decisions on the substantive issues presented. Therefore, any attempts to proceed with such matters would be legally untenable and beyond the court's mandate.

21. In support of this position, I am guided by the decision in the case of Owners of The Motor Vessel “Lillians” v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd (1989) I KRL where the court of appeal held that;-“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of the proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction. Where a court takes upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it doesn’t possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgement is given.”

22. To this end, the proceedings herein are struck out, as this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant suit.

E. Orders 23. In the final analysis, this court makes the following orders:-i.That the matter herein is struck out for want of jurisdiction.ii.That each party shall bear their own costs of these proceedings.iii.File marked as closed.

HON P. KITURMEMBERBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALRuling dated, signed and delivered virtually by Hon P. Kitur this 11th day of March 2025 in the presence of Ms. Migwi for the Landlord and in the absence of the Tenant.