Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd v Hume Pipes & Concrete Products [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Mombasa
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Mbichi Mboroki
Judgment Date
May 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the key outcomes of Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd v Hume Pipes & Concrete Products [2020] eKLR. This case summary provides insights into the judgment and its implications for the transport and construction sectors.

Case Brief: Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd v Hume Pipes & Concrete Products [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd v. Hume Pipes & Concrete Products
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 291 of 2011 (Mombasa)
- Court: Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Date Delivered: May 29, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Mbichi Mboroki
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue is whether the tenancy between Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd and Hume Pipes & Concrete Products constitutes a "controlled tenancy" under section 2 of Cap 301 of the laws of Kenya, given the existence of a lease agreement dated October 12, 2006.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Tenant/Applicant, Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd, has been operating from the disputed premises in Mombasa since 1999, dealing with transportation and cargo. The Landlord/Respondent, Hume Pipes & Concrete Products, expressed an intention not to renew the tenancy in January 2012 and refused to accept rent payments for November and December 2011. The Tenant, through its legal counsel, filed a complaint with the Tribunal on December 9, 2011, seeking intervention. The case has been pending since then, necessitating evidence from both parties.

4. Procedural History:
The Tenant filed a complaint under section 12(4) of Cap 301 on December 9, 2011. Interim orders were issued in favor of the Tenant on the same day. The case progressed with both parties presenting evidence and written submissions. The Landlord previously attempted to terminate the tenancy through a notice dated January 15, 2010, which was withdrawn. The Tenant filed reference BPRT 291/2011, which became the subject of this case after the Landlord's earlier complaint was dismissed.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered section 2 of Cap 301, which defines a "controlled tenancy," and the requirements for such tenancies under Kenyan law. The court also referenced the case of Bachelors Bakery Ltd v. Westlands Securities Ltd (Civil Appeal No 2 of 1978) to elucidate the legal standards for tenancy agreements.

Case Law:
The case of Bachelors Bakery Ltd v. Westlands Securities Ltd was pivotal, establishing that a tenancy agreement must be in writing for a period exceeding five years without a termination clause for reasons other than breach to be considered a controlled tenancy.

Application:
The Tribunal evaluated the evidence, including the lease agreement dated October 12, 2006, which was signed by both parties. It concluded that the tenancy did not meet the criteria for a controlled tenancy as defined by Cap 301. The Tribunal determined that the discrepancies in the names of the Tenant did not affect the substance of the dispute. Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal ruled that the tenancy was not controlled and struck out the Tenant’s reference as incompetent.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled that the tenancy agreement dated October 12, 2006, did not create a controlled tenancy under section 2 of Cap 301. Consequently, the Tenant's complaint was dismissed, the interim orders were discharged, and the money deposited at the Tribunal was ordered to be released to the Landlord.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment. The decision was unanimous in concluding that the tenancy was not controlled.

8. Summary:
The Tribunal's ruling in Multiple Hauliers (EA) Ltd v. Hume Pipes & Concrete Products clarifies the definition and requirements of controlled tenancies under Kenyan law. The decision underscores the importance of written agreements and the implications of tenancy classifications, affecting landlords and tenants in future disputes. The ruling reflects the Tribunal's commitment to addressing the substance of disputes over technicalities, aligning with the principles of justice as articulated in Article 159 of the Kenyan Constitution.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Multiple-Hauliers-EA-Ltd-v-Hume-Pipes--Concrete-Products-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2341_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries