Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited v Equip Agencies Limited & another [2025] KEBPRT 35 (KLR)

Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited v Equip Agencies Limited & another (Tribunal Case E095 of 2024) [2025] KEBPRT 35 (KLR) (21 January 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 35 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E095 of 2024

CN Mugambi, Chair

January 21, 2025

Between

Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited

Tenant

and

Equip Agencies Limited

1st Respondent

Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group

2nd Respondent

Ruling

Introduction 1. The Preliminary Objection brought by the 2nd Respondent dated 2. 8.2024 is brought on the grounds;-a.That the suit is an abuse of the court process in view of the orders issued on 28. 7.2023 in NRB BPRT Case No. E035 of 2021. b.That the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

2. The instant suit is brought by Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited against Equip Agencies Limited and Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group (represented by its office bearers).

3. BPRT Case No. E035 of 2021 (Nairobi) was brought by Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited against Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group and Equip Agencies Limited.

4. It is therefore safe to state that these suits have been brought by the same Tenant against the same Respondents.

5. There is also a suit filed, BPRT Case No. E099 of 2024 between the same Tenant and the same Tenants. The Complaints in BPRT Case No. E095/2024 and E099/2024 were all filed differently but are both dated 29. 7.2024. Though filed in separate files, the Complaints are identical.

6. It is the 2nd Respondent’s case that the Tenant’s suit in E095/2024, is an abuse of the court process in view of the orders issued on 28. 7.2023 in BPRT Case No. E035 of 2021 (Nairobi). BPRT Case No. E035 of 2021 was brought by the Tenant against the same Respondents in E099/2024 and E095/2024. In the said case (E035/2021), the Tribunal delivered itself as follows:-12:In conclusion therefore, it is my finding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this Reference and consequently the same and all the Applications filed herein are dismissed for want of jurisdiction and all and any interlocutory orders issued are hereby discharged.13:The Tenant/Applicant shall bear the costs of the Reference/Complaint.

7. The Tribunal made the above conclusions on the basis that the Tenant herein had no Landlord/Tenant relationship between it and the 2nd Respondents and further, that the 2nd Respondents having become the registered proprietors of the suit premises, the 1st Respondent no longer had any interest in the suit premises and the Tenant could not therefore purport to have the 1st Respondent as its Landlord.

8. The suits subsequently filed by the Tenant i.e. E095/2024 and E099/2024 do not indicate any change in the relationship between the parties that would give rise to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in this dispute afresh. I do agree with the 2nd Respondent that in the circumstances, the filing of case Numbers E095/2024 and E099/2024 was a blatant abuse of the court process.

9. In the case of; Muchanga Investments Limited vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others, [2009] eKLR, the court observed as follows;-“The term abuse of the court process has the same meaning as abuse of the judicial process. The employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse when a party uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the opponent and the efferent and effective administration of justice. It is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bonafides and frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.”

10. The court in this case is entitled to protect itself from abuse. In the case of; Stephen Somek Takweny & Anot vs David Mbuthia Githare & 2 Others, Milimani HCC No. 303 of 2009, the court in this regard stated as follows;-“The court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. When the matter is expressed in negative terms, it is said that there is inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In the civilized legal process, it is the machinery used in the courts of law to vindicate a man’s rights or to enforce her duties. It can be used properly but can also be used improperly, and so abused.An instance of this is when it is diverted from its proper purpose and is used with some ulterior motive for some collateral one or to give some collateral advantage, which the law does not recognize as legitimate use of the process. But the circumstances in which abuse of the process can arise are varied and incapable of exhaustive listing.Sometimes it can be shown by the very steps take and sometimes on the extrinsic evidence only. But if and when it is shown to have happened, it would be wrong to allow the misuse of that process to continue… There is the inherent jurisdiction of every court of justice to prevent or abuse of its process and its duty to intervene and stop the proceedings or put an end to it.”

11. In these circumstances, I do find that the 2nd Respondents notice of Preliminary objection is merited and proceed to allow the same by finding that this suit is an abuse of the court process. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute as earlier held in BPRT Case No. E035 OF 2021.

12. Further, I do find that the filing of BPRT Case No. E099 of 2024 is also an abuse of the court process.

13. In disposing of these matters, I proceed to dismiss BPRT Case Nos. E095/2024 and E099/2024 with costs to the 2nd Respondent.

14. Both files are ordered closed.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 21STDAY OF JANUARY, 2025. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI - CHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of Mr. Tambo holding brief for Mr. Kanga for the 2nd Respondent and Mr. Odero for Equip Agencies, Mr. Nchogu for the Applicant/Tenant