When Rent Disputes Become Land Wars: Why the Business Premises Rent Tribunal Declined Jurisdiction in Gituku v Waweru

A cautionary tale on jurisdiction, ownership disputes, and the thin line between tenancy and title in Kenya’s commercial property law

A Small Shop in Nyeri, A Big Legal Question

At first glance, this looked like an ordinary landlord–tenant dispute.

A shop.
A tenant.
Alleged rent arrears.
A notice to terminate tenancy.

But beneath the surface of Plot No. OMH/17 in Nyeri Township, a much bigger question was quietly brewing, who actually owns the property?

That single question would ultimately collapse the entire case.

In Gituku v Waweru (2026), the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) was asked to determine whether a landlord could terminate a controlled tenancy for rent arrears. Instead, the Tribunal found itself standing at a constitutional crossroads, one where jurisdiction, not rent, became the real issue.

The Parties and the Dispute

Landlord: Miriam Wangechi Gituku
Tenant: Mercy Wambui Waweru
Premises: Commercial shop at Plot No. OMH/17, Nyeri Township

The landlord moved the Tribunal alleging:

Rent arrears,
Tenant default,
And sought enforcement of a termination notice under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301.

The tenant, however, did not merely dispute the rent.

She challenged the landlord’s very right to act as landlord.

According to the tenant, Miriam Gituku was not the lawful owner of the premises and therefore had no legal capacity to:

Issue a termination notice,
Levy distress,
Or invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at all.

That challenge changed everything.

From Tenancy to Title: How the Case Transformed

What began as a controlled tenancy dispute slowly metamorphosed into a contest over land ownership.

The tenant’s pleadings and testimony raised issues touching on:

Proprietary ownership,
Succession and legitimacy of title,
Dealings with the County Government,
And competing claims over the suit premises.

These issues were not peripheral.
They were central.

And that distinction mattered.

The Tribunal was now being invited, directly or indirectly, to determine who owns the land. That invitation, the Tribunal held, was one it had no legal power to accept.

The Core Legal Issue: Jurisdiction Comes First

Before addressing rent, arrears, or notices, the Tribunal posed the most fundamental question in law:

Do we even have jurisdiction to hear this dispute?

Relying on settled jurisprudence, the Tribunal reaffirmed that:

Jurisdiction is determined by substance, not form.
A court or tribunal must look beyond how parties frame their pleadings.
Once jurisdiction is lacking, the forum must down its tools immediately.

The Tribunal invoked the classic authority of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989), where the Court of Appeal famously declared:

“Jurisdiction is everything.”

It also cited Phoenix of East Africa Assurance Co. Ltd v S.M. Thiga (2019), emphasizing that proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity from inception.

Why the Tribunal Declined Jurisdiction

The Business Premises Rent Tribunal derives its mandate strictly from Section 12 of Cap 301.

It can determine:

Rent disputes,
Termination notices,
Matters incidental to controlled tenancies.

What it cannot determine are:

Ownership of land,
Validity of title,
Succession disputes,
Competing proprietary claims.

In this case, the Tribunal found that it could not rule on the validity of the termination notice without first deciding who owned the premises. That inquiry was not incidental, it was foundational.

And ownership disputes belong exclusively to the Environment and Land Court (ELC) under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The moment ownership was squarely contested, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was ousted.

The Final Decision

The Tribunal held that:

It lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute.
The landlord’s termination notice could not be sustained—not because it was defective, but because the Tribunal had no power to adjudicate the underlying ownership dispute.
Both parties were at liberty to pursue their claims before the Environment and Land Court.
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, given the jurisdictional nature of the dismissal.

Why This Case Matters

This decision carries powerful lessons for landlords, tenants, and practitioners:

Jurisdiction is not negotiable
No matter how compelling your evidence is, a court without jurisdiction can do nothing for you.
Ownership disputes derail tenancy claims
Once title is contested, tenancy forums become legally powerless.
Substance beats form
Calling a dispute a “rent matter” does not make it one if ownership is at its core.
Choose the right forum, or lose time and money
Filing in the wrong forum can collapse years of litigation in a single ruling.

Conclusion: The Law Draws Clear Lines

Gituku v Waweru is a sobering reminder that Kenyan law draws clear jurisdictional boundaries, and courts and tribunals will enforce them strictly.

A landlord may believe rent is the problem.
A tenant may believe ownership is the truth.

But before either story can be told, the law demands one thing first:
the right court, with the right power, at the right time.

Anything less is legally futile.