Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a dispute between Teresia Njeri Kuria (tenant) and John Mwangi Karanja & Lucy Njoki Mwangi (landlords) over the illegal closure of the tenant's business premises. The tenant claimed the landlords locked her premises without legal notice or court order, violating her constitutional rights. The landlords countered that the tenant converted a residential property into an unauthorized shop and refused to pay increased rent. The Tribunal ruled the closure was unlawful under Cap. 301, established a controlled tenancy, granted the tenant costs of Kshs.10,000/-, and restrained the landlords from interfering with her occupation.
Issues
- Whether there exists a controlled tenancy between the parties herein under Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, given the absence of a written agreement and the landlord's acceptance of rent.
- Who is liable to pay costs of the suit under Section 12(1)(k) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, with the tenant awarded Kshs.10,000/- costs to be deducted from rent.
- Whether the tenant is entitled to reliefs including reopening of premises, unlimited access, and a restraining order against interference, based on the landlord's unlawful welding of the premises and alleged constructive eviction.
Holdings
- That there exists a controlled tenancy between the tenant and the Respondents in respect of the suit premises under Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.
- That the tenant is awarded costs of Kshs.10,000/- against the Respondents to be deducted from rent.
- That the Respondents are hereby restrained by themselves, servants, employees, caretakers, agents or any other persons claiming under them from harassing, intimidating, closing, evicting, threatening, disconnecting electricity supply or in any other manner interfering with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the suit premises in contravention of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.
- The Respondents are at liberty to issue proper notices under Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya notwithstanding order (b) above upon the tenant should they so desire.
- Complaint is marked as settled in the foregoing terms.
Remedies
- The respondents are restrained from harassing, intimidating, closing, evicting, or interfering with the tenant's quiet occupation of the premises under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap. 301.
- The respondents are permitted to issue proper notices under Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya, as long as they comply with the law, even after the restraining order is in place.
- The court determined that a controlled tenancy exists between the tenant and respondents under Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.
- The tenant is awarded costs of Kshs.10,000/- against the respondents to be deducted from rent payments as per the ruling.
- The complaint is marked as settled in accordance with the terms outlined in the ruling, resolving the matter as per the court's decision.
Monetary Damages
10000.00
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the principle that landlords must obtain a court order for possession under Section 4(2) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya. It also established the existence of a controlled tenancy under Section 2(1) of the same Act, emphasizing that unilateral rent increases without statutory notice are unenforceable. The ruling reinforced that landlords cannot lawfully evict tenants without judicial sanction, citing precedents like Gusii Mwalimu Investment Company Limited vs. Mwalimu Hotel Kisii Limited and Caren Okore vs. Bemuda Holdings Limited.
Precedent Name
- Caren Okore vs. Bemuda Holdings Limited
- Aroko vs. Ngotho & Another
- Nancy Njeri Gitau vs. James Muchone Njuga & Another
- BP Nairobi Service Station ltd vs. BP Kenya Ltd
- Mohammed Samin Asgar vs. Muktagauir Patel
Cited Statute
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act
- Constitution of Kenya 2010
Judge Name
Gakuhi Chege
Passage Text
- The dispute between the tenant and the Respondents appear to be on the amount payable as rent for use of the suit premises as a shop as opposed to a residential house. The landlords have not exhibited any notice for increment of rent from Kshs.2000/- to Kshs.5000/- to warrant closure of the suit premises on account of failure to pay the new rent as prescribed by Section 4(2) of Cap. 301. The landlords' demand for higher rent is not enforceable in absence of strict compliance with the said provision or mutual agreement with the Tenant.
- In the absence of a court order, I find that the landlord acted in total disregard of the law when he unlawfully locked up the suit premises thereby depriving the tenant of his possession. The landlord's action amounted to constructive eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. Since the landlord did not obtain a court order for possession, the tenant's eviction from the suit premises was illegal and unlawful.
- That the Respondents are hereby restrained by themselves, servants, employees, caretakers, agents or any other persons claiming under them from harassing, intimidating, closing, evicting, threatening, disconnecting electricity supply or in any other manner interfering with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the suit premises in contravention of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.