Iqbaal, Whitley Investment Limited, Homeplus Realtors Limited & Pyramid Auctioneers v Abdikadir Elmi Rooble, Abdulkader Hussein Suriya, Hanifa Abdulkader Hussein Suriya Adil, Abdulkader Suriya & Muhammed Abdulkader Suriya
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled the Rent Tribunal had no power over a ten-year lease, striking out the case and awarding the landlords costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
- 2.Whether the Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and whether its findings and orders were supported by the evidence and the law.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute
The tenancy was governed by an executed written lease for ten years with no early termination provision, so it was not a controlled tenancy and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Section 2(1) of Cap. 301 defines a controlled tenancy as one not reduced into writing, or in writing for a period not exceeding five years or terminable within five years. The lease of 13th May 2021 between Whitley Investments Limited and the 1st Respondent was for ten years (1st May 2021 to 30th April 2031) with no such termination clause. The Tribunal's power under section 12(1)(a) to determine whether a tenancy is controlled did not permit it to assume substantive jurisdiction once the material disclosed a tenancy outside section 2(1).
Whether the Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and whether its findings and orders were supported by the evidence and the law
The Tribunal failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole, disregarding the lease and the 1st Respondent's admissions, and its valuation-based orders rested on unproven facts.
The Tribunal accepted a landlord-tenant relationship and rent obligations while disregarding the written lease and contemporaneous documents. The 1st Respondent bore the burden under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act to prove the structures, expenditure and value attributable to him; the Tribunal itself noted the value of investments 'remains uncertain'. Orders directing a post-judgment joint valuation to establish liability were contingent on unproven facts and could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- A written tenancy for a term exceeding five years, without a termination provision (otherwise than for breach of covenant) within the first five years, is not a controlled tenancy under section 2(1) of Cap. 301, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over such a tenancy.
- A final determination must resolve the controversy on the evidence tendered; it cannot leave the existence or extent of a substantive entitlement to be established by evidence generated after judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is hereby allowed.
- 2.The Judgment of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on 20th January 2025 in BPRT/E095/2024 as consolidated with BPRT/E1130/2023, together with all consequential orders arising therefrom, is hereby set aside.
- 3.BPRT/E095/2024 and BPRT/E1130/2023 are hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- 4.The Appellants shall have the costs of the proceedings before the Tribunal and of this appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi
- BPRT/E095/2024 as consolidated with BPRT/E1130/2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap. 301
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.
On that statutory test, a written tenancy of ten years, without such a termination provision within the first five years, does not fall within the definition of a controlled tenancy.
Its power under Section 12(1)(a) entitled it to determine whether the tenancy was controlled; it did not permit it to exercise the wider substantive powers under the Act once the material before it disclosed a tenancy falling outside section 2(1).
A final determination must resolve the controversy presented to the adjudicating body on the evidence tendered before it. It cannot leave the existence or extent of a substantive entitlement to be established by evidence to be generated after judgment.
The appeal is hereby allowed.
BPRT/E095/2024 and BPRT/E1130/2023 are hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Iqbaal, Whitley Investment Limited, Homeplus Realtors Limited & Pyramid Auctioneers v Abdikadir Elmi Rooble, Abdulkader Hussein Suriya, Hanifa Abdulkader Hussein Suriya Adil, Abdulkader Suriya & Muhammed Abdulkader Suriya", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA No. E032 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5764/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.