Muhembeli v Limo & 3 others (Environment & Planning Appeal E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Owning a property doesn't make you its tenants' landlord in Kenya — you must show a tenancy agreement or rent payments before a rent tribunal can help you.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether in the absence of a tenancy agreement and receipt of rent by the appellant from the tenants on the suit premises, the appellant is entitled to rent and eviction orders against the tenants on the basis of his claim that he is the lawful owner of the suit premises
- 2.Whether there is justification for this court's interference with the tribunal's award of costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant, claiming ownership, could claim rent and eviction without a tenancy agreement or receipt of rent
He could not; landlord status derives from entitlement to rents and profits under tenancy terms, not ownership
Section 2 of Cap 301 defines landlord as the person entitled to rents and profits payable under the terms of the tenancy, and tenancy as a lease or sublease agreement. Ownership is not a consideration for landlord-tenant relationship. Having never entered a tenancy agreement nor received rent, the appellant was not a landlord and could not lawfully claim rent or eviction.
Tribunal's jurisdiction over ownership disputes
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over title questions, which lie with the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act
Section 12 of Cap 301 confines the Tribunal to landlord-tenant disputes: controlled tenancies, rent, service charge, possession, repairs, distress, compensation and costs. Ownership of title and legality of property acquisition are within the ELC's mandate as delineated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Whether the tribunal's award of costs was exorbitant and should be disturbed
No; costs are discretionary under section 12(1)(k) and no misdirection was shown
Relying on Mbogo v Shah, the court will not interfere with discretionary decisions of inferior tribunals unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong or based on a misdirection. The awards of Kshs. 75,000 to the tenants and Kshs. 35,000 to the 4th respondent were not exorbitant in current economic times and no irrelevant or ignored relevant matters were demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- Landlord-tenant relationship is not premised on ownership; a claimant must prove entitlement to rents and profits under terms of a tenancy
- Questions of ownership of title are for the Environment and Land Court, not the Rent Tribunal
- An appellate court will not interfere with a tribunal's discretionary award of costs absent misdirection
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Kakamega
- E090 of 2022, E091 of 2022 and E092 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Landlord and Tenant [Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments] Act, Cap 301)
Relief refused
#Appeal be allowed and the tribunal judgment be overturned/dismissed
No landlord/tenant relationship between appellant and the 1st to 3rd respondents; questions of ownership belong to the ELC; costs award not shown to be wrong
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is therefore clear that ownership of leased premises is not a consideration on whether or not there exists a tenant-landlord relationship.
Questions of ownership of title and whether or not property acquisition was lawful are questions for determination by the Environment and Land Court [ELC]
I find no justification to interfere with the tribunal's findings. In the premises, I find no merit in this appeal, which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the amount awarded to the 4th respondent: opening description says Kshs. 25,000 while the court's analysis says Kshs. 35,000
Succession cause attributed to different deceased persons in the memorandum of appeal grounds ('Andrew Munubi') versus the appellant's evidence and submissions ('Andrew Muhubu'/'Timothy Endeheli')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muhembeli v Limo & 3 others (Environment & Planning Appeal E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5109/eng@2025-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.