Tribunal Rules Against Landlord Evicting Tenant Without Proper Termination Notice

The Business Premises Rent Tribunal has dismissed an eviction bid by a Kiambu landlord after finding that her tenant had not been personally served with a lawful termination notice, shielding him from removal despite her insistence on regaining possession of the property.

In a ruling delivered virtually on September 26, 2025, the Tribunal faulted the landlord’s reliance on a notice that had merely been affixed to the premises without photographic evidence or attempts at personal service, declaring it void. It stressed that eviction proceedings require strict proof of service and compliance with statutory forms under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301.

The landlord had issued a termination notice dated March 31, 2025, demanding that the tenant vacate by June, and later moved to the Tribunal on June 3 seeking vacant possession, police assistance, and a mandatory injunction to restrain interference with her property rights. She argued that the tenant’s continued stay amounted to trespass.

But the tenant, who opposed the application through a sworn affidavit, countered that he had never been personally served and only learned of the notice once proceedings began. He also produced Mpesa statements showing that he continued paying rent in June and July, which the landlord accepted — an act the Tribunal found to have waived the termination notice.

“The Tribunal finds that a landlord cannot both terminate a tenancy and at the same time receive rent, as such conduct affirms the continuation of the relationship,” the ruling stated.

The tenant further demonstrated that he had spent more than Sh450,000 on renovations and improvements to the premises, supported by receipts and photographs. The Tribunal held that it would be inequitable to permit eviction after such substantial investments, ruling that a landlord who allows permanent improvements without objection cannot later disregard them.

Although the tenant also raised the principle of res judicata, arguing that a similar application had previously been withdrawn, the Tribunal rejected this plea, noting that the earlier matter had not been conclusively determined.

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the landlord’s application, nullified the termination notice, and awarded the tenant Sh15,000 in costs, to be offset against rent arrears.

With the ruling, the tenant — who was absent when the decision was read — emerged the successful party, while the landlord was left to absorb the consequences of procedural missteps in a case that initially appeared to be a straightforward enforcement of statutory rights.