Case ID:165140

Jonathan Mutuku Maingi v Davetronics Company Limited [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Tribunal Case 190 of 2020

Parties:

Jonathan Mutuku Maingi v Davetronics Company Limited

Date Delivered:

04 Jun 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Mbichi Mboroki - Chairman

Citation:

Jonathan Mutuku Maingi v Davetronics Company Limited [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Civil

Parties Profile:

Individual/Private Body/Association v Individual/Private Body/Association

County:

Nairobi

Case Outcome:

Application dismissed.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL

TRIBUNAL CASE NO 190 OF 2020 (NAIROBI)

JONATHAN MUTUKU MAINGI...................................TENANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

DAVETRONICS COMPANY LIMITED..............LANDLORD/RESPONDENT

RULING

The Tenant/Applicant filed a reference under

section 12(4) of Cap 301

and also a notice of motion dated

14

th

February 2020

under a certificate of urgency. The Tribunal upon hearing the advocates for the Tenant/Applicant and upon perusal of all the pleadings issued interim orders on

17

th

February 2020.

The Tribunal has on record the following pleadings;

1. Tenant’s reference and the notice of motion dated

14

th

February 2020.

2. The Landlord’s notice of motion dated

7

th

April 2020.

3. Tenant’s written submissions dated

11

th

May 2020.

4. Landlord’s written submissions dated

12

th

May 2020.

5. The Applicant’s bundle of documents dated

12

th

May 2020.

6. The Tenant’s replying affidavit to the Landlord’s application dated

7

th

April 2020.

The Tribunal has perused all the pleadings and the written submissions of the advocates of the parties in details and makes the following findings.

Admitted facts:

1. That the Landlord/Respondent is the owner of the suit premises

LR 3734/878 (original 3734/4/2

Nairobi).

2. That the Landlord entered into a lease agreement on

25

th

September 2018

with Harry Olusemi Gabriel Arogundade for a period of five years and 3 months with effect from

1

st

October 2015

and will expire on

31

st

September 2020.

The core issue for determination in this reference is whether there is a Landlord and Tenant relationship between the Applicant and the Landlord.

The Tenant/Applicant has deponed that he bought the business and the tenancy interests of the Landlord’s Tenant in respect of the suit premises with full knowledge and/or consent of the Landlord. The Landlord maintained that the Tenant is a stranger. The Tenant is relying in an oral agreement. The Tenant/Applicant has admitted that he has no written tenancy agreement with the Landlord. The Tenant is relying in an oral agreement and not on the Landlord’s written lease agreement with the Tenant dated

25

th

September 2015.

The Tribunal notes the following;

1. The Tenant the Landlord is alleging that he is its lawful Tenant in the suit premises is not a party to the reference before the Tribunal.

2. The Tenant/Applicant has not annexed sale agreement in respect of the alleged sale of the business and tenancy interests in respect of the suit premises.

3. The proclamation dated

13

th

January 2020

which prompted the Tenant/Applicant to file the reference in the Tribunal was not addressed to him but to the Tenant who has signed the lease agreement with the Landlord dated

25

th

September 2015.

4. There is no written consent from the Landlord’s authority the Tenant who signed the lease dated

25

th

September 2015

to transfer the business and the tenancy to the Tenant/Applicant.

5. The business’s license in respect of the suit premises is in the name of Mummy dada Group Ltd which is an entity which is not signatory to lease dated

25

th

September 2015.

6. The lease agreement dated

25

th

September 2015

did not create a controlled tenancy and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine any dispute in respect of the same.

In the light of the above findings, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The tribunal is not able to conclusively determine whether there is a Landlord and Tenant relationship between the Applicant and the Landlord without taking oral evidence from the parties.

2. There is evidence on record that the application is in exclusive possession of the suit premises and the status quo should be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the reference.

3. A Landlord has a statutory right to levy distress under

section 3 of the Distress for Rent Act Cap 293

and the Tenant/Applicant is hereby ordered to pay all the arrears of rent (if any), on or before

30

th

June 2020

and the Landlord shall accept the same on without prejudice basis pending the hearing and determination of the reference in default the Landlord shall levy distress.

4. The Landlord’s application dated

7

th

April 2020

is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. The Tenant’s application dated

14

th

February 2020

and the reference dated

14

th

February 2020

shall be heard and be determined together with way of oral evidence on a date to be mutually agreed at the registry.

6. The interim orders issued on

17

th

February 2020

are hereby extended and shall remain in force subject to compliance with order 3 above.

Ruling dated and delivered this 4

th

day of June 2020 in the presence of Kimani for the Landlord. Mingo for the Tenant.

MBICHI MBOROKI

CHAIRMAN

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL