Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Stephen Jefwa Charo (Tenant) seeking orders to reopen his locked business premises, restrain the Landlord (Lucy Wanjiru Mburu) from interfering with his tenancy, and separate utility meters. The Tenant admitted defaulting on rent for September and October 2020 due to COVID-19, with the Landlord claiming Kshs 99,000 in unpaid rent. The Tribunal ruled the Landlord's closure of the premises illegal, stating she should have followed legal procedures under Cap 301 and Cap 293 for rent recovery, not locking the premises. The Landlord issued a notice to vacate in March 2021, but the Tribunal found this insufficient to justify the closure and ordered immediate reopening.
Issues
The central issue was whether the landlord's actions of locking the tenant's business premises without following the statutory procedures under section 4 of Cap 301 and issuing a notice to vacate after the tenant filed his application constituted lawful termination of the tenancy. The court determined that the landlord's method of recovery through physical closure rather than legal distress for rent was invalid, emphasizing the need for adherence to prescribed legal processes.
Holdings
- The court held that the landlord's method of termination by locking the premises was illegal. The landlord failed to serve the required notice under section 4 of Cap 301 and attempted to terminate the tenancy without following the proper legal procedure. Distress for rent cannot be equated with termination of tenancies.
- The court determined that the landlord's closure of the tenant's premises was illegal. The correct method for recovering rent arrears is to levy distress under section 3 of Cap 293, not to lock the premises. The landlord's actions were an illegal attempt to terminate the tenancy.
- The court found that the notice to vacate issued by the landlord on 25th March 2021, after the tenant filed the application, does not justify or cure the landlord's prior illegal actions. The court ruled that the landlord's late notice does not affect the tenant's defense and that the landlord must follow legal procedures for enforcement.
Remedies
- The Landlord is at liberty to lawfully distress for rent (if any) in accordance with applicable procedures.
- Landlord ordered to reopen the Tenant's business premises immediately, with the Tenant authorized to break in and obtain possession with police assistance if the Landlord fails to comply.
- The Landlord is restrained from unlawfully interfering with the Tenant's quiet occupation and lawful enjoyment of the premises pending the hearing of the complaint.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that landlords must follow statutory procedures for recovering rent arrears, specifically distress for rent under section 3 of Cap 293, and cannot unlawfully terminate tenancies by locking premises. It emphasized that termination of tenancy must comply with section 4 of Cap 301, requiring proper notice for valid reasons. The landlord's actions were deemed illegal as they bypassed these legal mechanisms.
Cited Statute
- Cap 301
- Cap 293
Judge Name
Hon Cyprian Mugambi Nguthari
Passage Text
- 8. In conclusion, I therefore make the following orders; a. That the Landlord is ordered to reopen the Tenant's business premises immediately and in default, the Tenant to break in and obtain possession of the premises with the assistance of the OCS Ruai Police Station.
- b. I further hold the view that locking the Tenant's business premises was an attempt at terminating the tenancy herein. That mode of termination is illegal as the Landlord ought to have followed the procedure provided for under section 4 of Cap 301. Under that section, the Landlord is obligated to serve the Tenant with a notice to terminate the tenancy for any of the reasons provided for under section 7 of the Act (Cap 301). The Landlord did not issue any such notice.
- a. There is no dispute that the Tenant was in rent arrears when he filed the notice of motion dated 5th October 2020. The main contention in the said notice of motion was the closure of the Tenant's business premises by the Landlady which the Tenant contends was illegal. I understand and take the view that the Landlady locked the premises in an attempt to recover her rent arrears. The correct approach that the Landlord should have taken was to levy distress for rent under section 3 of Cap 293 and not locking down the premises.