Case ID:185001

Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji t/a Life Transformation Centre v Teresiah Njeri Kimani & another [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Tribunal Case 76 of 2021

Parties:

Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji t/a Life Transformation Centre v Teresiah Njeri Kimani & Gerald Mugo Kimani

Date Delivered:

19 Oct 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI NGUTHARI CHAIRMAN

Citation:

Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji t/a Life Transformation Centre v Teresiah Njeri Kimani & another [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr Nyagaka for the 1st Respondent

Court Division:

Tribunal

Parties Profile:

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

County:

Nakuru

Advocates:

Mr Nyagaka for the 1st Respondent

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

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 76 OF 2021 (NAKURU)

EMMANUEL NGARUIYA KIRONJI T/A

LIFE TRANSFORMATION CENTRE.................................................TENANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

TERESIAH NJERI KIMANI...............................................LANDLORD/1

ST

RESPONDENT

GERALD MUGO KIMANI................................................LANDLORD/2

ND

RESPONDENT

RULING

1. On

22

nd

June 2021

, the Tenant/Applicant filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the Landlord be ordered to accept rent and to stop harassing and/or evicting the Tenant from the premises located at “Kwa Buda” area about 4 kilometers from Nakuru Town, amongst other prayers. On

24

th

June 2021

, the Tribunal issued orders in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the said application.

2. The 1

st

Respondent’s notice of motion dated

28

th

June 2021

has sought orders of injunction against the Tenant/Applicant restraining the Tenant from interfering by congregating or holding any meetings in the suit premises known as

Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/2805.

The application has also sought orders to rescind the orders dated

24

th

June 2021

and that the orders issued by Justice Matheka in the ruling dated

31

st

May 2021

be implemented forthwith.

3. The application by the 1

st

Respondent/Landlord is supported by the affidavit of the 1

st

Respondent which may be summarized as follows;

a. That she is the administrator of the estate of the late Geoffrey Kimani Mugo. The 2

nd

Respondent is her son.

b. That she has never entered into any tenancy agreement with the Tenant herein.

c. That a ruling has already been delivered in

succession cause No. 47 of 2015 Nakuru

on

31

st

May 2021

.

d. That the Tenant/Applicant has no claim or interest whatsoever on the suit land.

e. That unless the Tenant is evicted, the 1

st

Respondent stands to suffer immensely.

4. In opposing the application, the Tenant has relied on his affidavits sworn on

22

nd

June 2021

and

23

rd

August 2021.

The said affidavits may be summarized as follows;

a. That the Tenant operates a business called Life Transformation Church where he pays

Kshs 25,000

per month as rent.

b. That early

June 2021

, the 1

st

Respondent started harassing the Tenants congregation, threatening them with eviction.

c. That the 1

st

Respondent has refused to accept rent and the Tribunal has refused to accept rent and the Tribunal ought to order the 1

st

Respondent to accept rent and stop harassing the Tenant.

5. On

6

th

September 2021

, the application dated

28

th

June 2021

proceeded by way of oral submissions. The submissions of the counsel for the 1

st

Respondent/the Applicant in that application may be summarized as follows;

a. That the orders issued on

24

th

June 2021

were issued by misrepresentation and ought to be rescinded.

b. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue the orders it issued to the Tenant.

c. That it is the 2

nd

Respondent who brought in the Tenant through an agent.

d. That the Tenant and the 2

nd

Respondent were served with the ruling of the Judge on

14

th

June 2021

and they failed to disclose this ruling to the Tribunal.

e. That the Tenant came to court with unclean hands.

f. That the Administrator ought to be allowed to administer the estate.

g. That the Administrator/1

st

Respondent is wrongly sued as she was not involved in the tenancy agreement.

6. The oral submissions of counsel for the Tenant may be summarized as follows;

a. That it is the 2

nd

Respondent, a son to the 1

st

Respondent who directed the Tenant to the agent known as Planet Homes and Property Solution Ltd who was dealing with the suit premises.

b. That the Tenant entered into a lease agreement (written) with the said agent.

c. That the Tenant was not aware of the family dispute over the suit premises and was not a party to the succession dispute.

d. That the Tenant’s have been served with a court order from the High Court dated

8

th

June 2021

. The 1

st

Respondent against whom the order was issued has not been disclosed.

e. The 1

st

Respondent has always been aware of the Tenant’s occupation of the suit premises and had never raised any issue. She lives near the suit premises.

f. That it is not easy for the Tenant to fine alternative premises and the Tenant is even willing to negotiate further terms with the Respondents.

7. The only issue for determination is whether the 1

st

Respondent is entitled to the orders sought in the application dated

28

th

June 2021.

The Tenant, Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji is on the suit premises courtesy of a lease agreement dated

5

th

October 2020.

The agreement was for a period of one year from

1

st

October 2020

to

30

th

September 2021

. As at the time of arguments, the Tenant was still in the premises. I have not seen or been notified of any charge of that position as at the date of writing this ruling. I therefore proceed on the assumption that the Tenant is still in the premises.

8. The 1

st

Respondent has admitted that it is her son who introduced the Tenant to the suit premises. The Tenant has also confirmed that it is the 2

nd

Respondent who introduced him to the authorized agents of the Respondents who then entered into an agreement with the Tenant.

9. Clearly the tenancy between the parties was a controlled tenancy. It was in writing and for a period of less than five years, the Tenant did take possession of the premises and that fact is recognized by the 1

st

Respondent when she seeks to have the Tenant evicted from the premises. There is also evidence that the Tenant has been paying rent to the agent and which has not been disputed by the 1

st

Respondent.

10. The 1

st

Respondent has denied knowledge of the Tenant and the agent but the connection between the estate, the agency and the Tenant has been established. The Tenant had no notice of the proceedings in the succession cause and he has indicated that he was not a party to the same.

11. In this event, the Respondents became the principals of the agent, Planet Homes and Property Solutions Ltd. The Respondents, if indeed they were interested in terminating the tenancy, they ought then to have issued a tenancy notice to the Tenant under

section 4(2) of Cap 301

which is in mandatory terms.

12. The 1

st

Respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine this dispute. Other than the blanket denial of jurisdiction, the 1

st

Respondent has not demonstrated how in the present case the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been ousted. I do not find this challenge to be credible and I dismiss the same.

13. The 1

st

Respondent has placed much reliance on the ruling of the High Court in succession cause No. 47 of 2018. The grant that was sought to be relied in that case was issued on

7

th

July 2018

. The Respondents in that case are John Ng’ang’a, Catherine Wangui Kimani and Gerald Mugo Kimani.

14. The said John Ng’ang’a is said to have occupied the premises after the demise of the husband of the 1

st

Respondent. The 1

st

Respondent, it is stated in that judgement, had never met the said Joseph Ng’ang’a but she saw the sign board of his church at the gate of the property.

15. From the material placed before me, it is clear that the said John Ng’ang’a who was the 1

st

Respondent in the succession cause is

Not

the same person as Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji. This is more so because the lease agreement between the Tenant herein and the agent was entered into in the year

2020

while the said John Ng’ang’a was said to have been in the premises as early as

5

th

September 2019

when the 1

st

Respondent herein sought to have him made a party to the succession proceedings. I therefore do find that the orders in the succession cause did not apply or were not directed to the Tenant in this matter.

16. Even if I was wrong in this one, the High Court in the succession cause did not or absolute terms order the eviction of the Tenant. At page 18 of the ruling, the Judge states;

(b) The 1

st

Respondent, if he is still in possession of the premises has 30 days from the date hereof to either vacate the premises in Bahati/Kabatini/Block 1/2805 or enter into negotiations with the administrator on terms of occupation. The administrator was the discretion or otherwise what is in the best interests of the estate.

17. The Tenant referred to in the above statement by the Judge is John Nga’ng’a. It is not the Tenant in the Tribunal cause presently before me. But even that Tenant was given an opportunity to negotiate the terms of his occupation of the suit premises with the administrator of the estate, who is the 1

st

Respondent. If the orders issued by Justice Matheka. In the succession cause are to be implemented forthwith, then they can only be implemented against one John Ng’ang’a, he is not a party to these proceedings and I can therefore issue No orders as against him.

18. The orders of Justice Matheka cannot also be implemented against Emmanuel Ngaruiya Kironji for the reason that he was not a party in the succession dispute and he was not the Tenant referred to in the said succession cause. The tenancy of the Tenant herein was never a subject matter for discussion and determination in the succession cause.

19. Following from the above, I do find that the application by the Landlady 1

st

Respondent dated

28

th

June 2021

lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the Tenant.

HON CYPRIAN MUGAMBI NGUTHARI

CHAIRMAN

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL

Ruling

dated, signed and delivered virtually by

Hon Cyprian Mugambi Nguthari

this

19

th

day of October, 2021

in the presence of

Ms Kigotho

holding brief for

Mr Nyagaka for the 1

st

Respondent

and in the absence of the

Tenant.

HON CYPRIAN MUGAMBI NGUTHARI

CHAIRMAN

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL