A landlord’s bid to evict her tenant from a business premises in Kiambu has backfired after the Business Premises Rent Tribunal dismissed her application, citing multiple legal and procedural blunders. The tribunal not only voided the termination notice but also ordered her to pay the tenant’s legal costs.
The dispute stemmed from a notice of termination dated March 31, 2025, directing the tenant to vacate by June 2025. When he failed to leave, the landlord moved to the Tribunal in June seeking vacant possession, police assistance to enforce compliance, and an injunction restraining him from interfering with her property rights.
At face value, it appeared to be a straightforward case of a landlord exercising her rights under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301. However, as the case progressed, several weaknesses in the landlord’s case became evident.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had been served with the termination notice through a process server who affixed it to the premises. She argued that his continued occupation amounted to trespass and insisted that his renovations did not override her statutory rights.
The tenant, in response, denied ever being personally served, producing Mpesa statements showing rent payments for June and July 2025 that the landlord had accepted. He argued that the acceptance of rent after issuing a termination notice amounted to a waiver of that notice. He also produced receipts showing over Sh450,000 in improvements to the premises, arguing it would be unfair to evict him after such investment.
The Tribunal agreed that service had not been properly proved, ruling that merely affixing a notice without photographic or personal service evidence was inadequate. It also found the notice defective for failing to meet the prescribed legal form and requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that acceptance of rent after June 2025 nullified the termination notice, as it indicated the continuation of tenancy.
Citing equity, the Tribunal noted that a landlord who allows a tenant to spend significant sums on permanent improvements without objection cannot later claim the works were unauthorised.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application, declared the notice void, and awarded the tenant Sh15,000 in legal costs to be offset against rent arrears. The ruling, delivered virtually on September 26, 2025, underscored the importance of proper service, legal compliance, and consistency in landlord-tenant relationships.
