Samuel Kaptalai Cheptoo & 2 others v David Cullen [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nakuru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Mbichi Mboroki, Chairman
Judgment Date
May 26, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of Samuel Kaptalai Cheptoo & 2 others v David Cullen [2020] eKLR, highlighting key judgments and legal implications. Perfect for legal professionals and students.

Case Brief: Samuel Kaptalai Cheptoo & 2 others v David Cullen [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Samuel Kaptalai Cheptoo, Isaac Kiptaylor Cheptoo, Mariko Kiserich Limo v. David Cullen
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 149 of 2019 (Nakuru)
- Court: Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Date Delivered: 26th May 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Mbichi Mboroki, Chairman
- Country: Republic of Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the sale agreement between the landlords and the tenant.
- The implications of the expired lease agreement on the tenant's status and rights concerning the suit premises.
- The validity of the landlords' claim for vacant possession and outstanding rent.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved are Samuel Kaptalai Cheptoo, Isaac Kiptaylor Cheptoo, and Mariko Kiserich Limo (the landlords) and David Cullen (the tenant). The tenant initially occupied the suit premises, a two-bedroom house, under a lease agreement dated 2nd January 2009. After the first lease expired, Cullen entered into a second lease agreement on 1st January 2014, which also expired on 31st December 2018. The tenant then engaged in a sale agreement with the landlords on 4th June 2016 for the purchase of the premises, for which he paid Kshs 15,000, but the sale was never completed. Despite the expired lease, the tenant continued to occupy the premises.

4. Procedural History:
The landlords filed a reference under section 12(4) of Cap 301 and a notice of motion on 30th October 2019, seeking to levy distress for unpaid rent of Kshs 300,000 and for vacant possession of the premises. The tenant responded with a preliminary objection on 6th November 2019, contesting the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The parties presented oral submissions, and the Tribunal considered all pleadings and evidence before making its ruling.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The Tribunal considered relevant provisions under Cap 301, particularly sections concerning landlord-tenant relationships and jurisdictional authority.
- Case Law: The Tribunal referenced prior cases that delineate the boundaries of jurisdiction in landlord-tenant disputes, emphasizing that unresolved sale agreements do not terminate tenancy agreements unless explicitly stated.
- Application: The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction over the sale agreement since it was incomplete and did not affect the existing lease. It ruled that the tenant remained in a periodic tenancy after the lease's expiration, obligating him to continue paying rent. The landlords had not properly terminated the tenancy, thus they could not claim vacant possession.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the landlords, allowing their application for distress and ordering the tenant to pay costs. The decision clarified that the tenant's status as a periodic tenant persisted despite the expired lease and incomplete sale agreement, reinforcing the necessity for proper termination notices.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The ruling affirmed the landlords' right to claim outstanding rent and granted them permission to levy distress for unpaid dues. It underscored the importance of formal lease agreements and termination processes in landlord-tenant relationships, with implications for future disputes regarding tenancy and property transactions in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.