The High Court has directed the landlord of LP Holdings Ltd to refund Ksh 230,000 rent deposit to Michelle Muhanda, a tenant.

Muhanda filed an appeal after vacating the premises she had earlier rented from 2015 to October 2022.

The dispute arose between Muhanda and the landlord when the tenant asked back her deposit.

The High Court considered an appeal by Michelle Muhanda against LP Holdings Ltd regarding the refund of a Ksh 230,000 rent deposit. The dispute arose after Muhanda vacated the premises she had rented from February 2015 to October 2022.

Also Read: Court Issues New Directive on Iranian Crew Arrested in Mombasa

Reasons That Led the Tenant to Withhold Tenant’s Funds

During the Court hearing, the Respondent did not want to refund the deposit, arguing that the ballooned repair costs Ksh 271,857.60.

However, on the other side, the Appellant also sought punitive damages totaling Ksh 800,000.

“In this instance, the Appellant’s specific claim was for (i) punitive and exemplary damages under the Consumer Protection Act; and (ii) damages under contract for the oppressive, high-handed, outrageous, insolent and vindictive conduct. No specific amount is quoted in the prayers. It is only in the description of the nature of the claim that the Appellant quotes the figure of Kshs 800,000/=. It is settled law that an award of damages is discretionary. Therefore, the Appellant’s mere suggestion or argument that it is entitled to an award of Kshs 800,000/= does not bind the court to award the same. That being the case, this point of the preliminary objection is moot,” read part notice

“The Respondent refused to refund the deposit, citing ballooned repair costs of Kshs 271,857.60, and the Appellant also sought punitive damages totaling Kshs 800,000.”

Also Read: Sonko, Mutua Feature Among 18 High-Profile Corruption Cases in Court

How the Court Ruled on the Case

Earlier, the Small Claims Court dismissed the claim on preliminary objections, holding that the matter was outside its subject matter jurisdiction and exceeded its pecuniary limits.

On appeal, the High Court found that the Small Claims Court did have jurisdiction under Section 12(1)(b) of the Small Claims Court Act, which covers civil claims relating to contracts for money held and received.

These developments come after the High Court set aside the trial court’s ruling, allowed the appeal with costs of Kshs 40,000, and remitted the matter back to the Small Claims Court to be heard on merit before a different adjudicator.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel and WhatsApp Community for instant news updates

Image showing details of how the Small Claims court made ruling on September 2023 concerning the case of tenant and landlord. PHOTO/File