Wairiuko v Lumumba
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed you can be a landlord without holding the title deed, and dismissed the appeal with 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 a controlled tenancy relationship existed between Appellant and Respondent.
- 2.Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
- 3.Whether the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the appeal?
Key legal issues
#Whether a landlord-tenant relationship was established between the Appellant and Respondent
Yes - the Respondent's uncontroverted evidence established the Appellant as the person entitled to rents and profits, hence landlord.
The Respondent produced correspondence on tenancy matters, continuous occupation from 2018, rent payments to the Appellant's instructed agent (Sort Masters Investment Ltd), a KPLC account and billing statement in the Appellant's name, and a notice to vacate issued by the Appellant's agent. The Appellant did not controvert these facts; her title deed in a third party's name did not displace the relationship.
Whether the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter
Yes - a controlled tenancy existed, satisfying the condition precedent, and Section 12(4) of Cap 301 empowered the Tribunal to hear the complaint.
Citing Pritam v Ratilal, the court held the landlord-tenant relationship is a precondition to the Act's application. Having found a controlled tenancy existed, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 12(4) to investigate complaints relating to controlled tenancies was properly engaged, and the Tribunal rightly affirmed its jurisdiction.
Whether the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought
No - grounds challenging the tenancy and jurisdiction were disallowed; the Tribunal's ruling was upheld.
The court found no basis to fault the Tribunal's finding that the Appellant was the landlord, and the Tribunal properly directed itself on the law and evidence. Grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were disallowed, as were grounds 2 and 4 on jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Ownership of premises is not determinative of landlord status under Cap 301; landlord is the person entitled to rents and profits as between the parties.
- Existence of a controlled tenancy is a condition precedent to a Tribunal's jurisdiction under Cap 301.
- A first appellate court interferes with a tribunal's decision only where it misapprehended evidence, applied wrong principles or misdirected its discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
- 2.The ruling and order of Hon Cyprian Mugambi Nguthari /Chairperson, Business premises tribunal in (tribunal case number BPRT /E447/2024 21.2.2025) is upheld.
- 3.The matter is referred back to the Business Premises Rent tribunal for the hearing and disposal of the pending reference and any pending matters not yet dealt with by the tribunal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Tribunal Case No. E447 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over appeals from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Relief refused
#Appeal allowed and Tribunal ruling set aside and substituted with an order striking out the suit
Court found the Respondent's evidence of landlord-tenant relationship substantially uncontroverted and the Tribunal properly seized of jurisdiction
Costs
The appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent; 'the Respondent shall have the costs of the Appeal.'
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.
Accordingly, the Court hereby nds the appeal not merited hence dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
The matter is referred back to the Business Premises Rent tribunal for the hearing and disposal of the pending reference and any pending matters not yet dealt with by the tribunal.
Ownership of the premises is not, in itself, a determinant factor for quali cation as a landlord under section 2 of the Landlord and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering establishments) Act (cap 301).
There must be a controlled tenancy as de ned in section 2 to which the provisions of the Act can be made to apply. Outside it, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
The court nds that production of the title deed, perse, did not displace landlord tenancy relations between the appellant and respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery venue inconsistency: court at Nairobi but judgment delivered at Voi
Tribunal case number inconsistency: E447 of 2024 vs E044 of 2024
Erratic paragraph numbering: '30' and '31' reused; final orders numbered 30 with items i) and iii) only
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wairiuko v Lumumba", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Appeal E056 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6087/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.