Murithi v Njau & another [2025] KEBPRT 270 (KLR) | Controlled Tenancy | Esheria

Murithi v Njau & another [2025] KEBPRT 270 (KLR)

Full Case Text

Murithi v Njau & another (Tribunal Case E125 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 270 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 270 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E125 of 2025

N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member

May 7, 2025

Between

Judy Gacheri Murithi

Applicant

and

Kimani Njau

1st Respondent

Peter Njoroge

2nd Respondent

Ruling

1. This Ruling pertains to the Tenant/Applicants application dated 31/1/2025. The same was filed as a complaint under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301) of the Laws of Kenya and which we hereinafter refer to as “the Act”.

2. The Application sought for orders of access to the demised premises, for the Tenant to be allowed quiet possession thereof, for suspension of payment of rent arrears of between December, 2024 and February 2025 when the premises had been closed and the Landlord to be barred from increasing rent from Kshs.5,000/- to Kshs.8,000/-.

3. The Tenant also sought to have the Landlord restrained from letting out the premises to any 3rd party and costs of the suit. The orders ensuing therefrom were to be enforced by the OCS Muthaiga Police Station.

4. The Tenant had also together with the Application filed the reference dated 31/1/2025. It is also anchored on Section 12(4) of the Act. The reference grieved that:“The landlords have threatened to evict by locking the Business Premises without following the right procedure”.

5. The Tenant’s evidence in brief is that:-i.The landlords had arbitrarily locked up her business premises without any authority.ii.They had purported to increase rent from Kshs.5,000/- to Kshs.8,000/- without following the due process of the Law.iii.The landlords had threatened to evict her and lent out the demised premises to a 3rd party.iv.She had suffered great losses at the time the premises were closed,v.The rent for December, 2024 upto February, 2025 was not payable as the premises had been closed.vi.The rent for the premises was initially Kshs.55,000/- but was reduced to Kshs.5,000/- when she assumed the responsibility of paying for water.

6. On their part, the respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by one Irene Kimani. She alleged to be the 1st Respondent but from the record, one Kimani Njau is the 1st Respondent. It is her evidence that:-i.The Tenant was a serial rent defaulter.ii.She was rude to the landlords.iii.The rent payable for the demised premises was Kshs.5,500/- but the Tenant would pay only between Kshs.4900 and Kshs.5,000/-.iv.She would also collect rent from other Tenants but would remit the same less what she referred to as mpesa transaction fees.v.The Tenant was intent on taking over the entire building that housed the demised premises from the landlords.vi.She had confirmed her willingness to vacate the demised premises and had expended her rental deposit but she later reneged on the same.

7. From the pleadings and documents filed by the parties and further from the oral submissions rendered on the 2/4/2025, the issues that emerge for determination are the following:-i.Whether the application dated 31/1/2025 has merit.ii.Who should bear the costs.

8. On whether the Tenant’s application is merited, we observe that in their affidavit sworn on the 28/2/2025 by Irene Kimani, the respondents have not denied that they locked the demised premises for the period between December, 2024 and February 2025.

9. The landlords have also not in anyway rebutted the Tenant’s contention that they had increased the rent payable on the demised premises from Kshs.5,000/- to Kshs.8,000/- and that they had further threatened to evict her.

10. Section 4(2) of the Act is very categorical on what a landlord requires to do to effect a termination of tenancy, to increase rent payable on the demised premises or to alter any term of the Tenancy. It states that:-i.“a landlord who wishes to terminate a controlled tenancy, or to alter to the detriment of the Tenant, any term or condition in, or right or service enjoyed by the Tenant under such a tenancy, shall give notice in that behalf to the Tenant in the prescribed form’.ii.It is apparent that the landlords in locking down the premises and in purporting to increase the rent payable from Kshs.5,000 to Kshs.8,000/- were in clear breach of the Act. Simply put, their actions did not find recognition under the act and were therefore illegal.

11. We therefore do find that the Tenant was entitled to seek the protection of this court and the landlords are therefore commanded to allow the Tenant quiet possession of the demised premises and not to interfere with the rent payable on the demised premises unless otherwise altered in strict compliance with the law.

12. There being no denial by the landlords that the premises were locked up for between December, 2024 and February, 2025 we then determine that no rent is payable for the three months of December 2024 January 2025 and February 2025. If the same is already paid, to be credited to future months.

13. We have looked at the reference dated 31/1/2023 and are of the view that nothing will be left to be heard with the determination of this application. The same will therefore be resolved in the same terms with the application.

14. On costs, we abide with the provisions of Section 12(1) k of the Act and award costs to the successful party and who is the Tenant.

15. In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-1. That the application and reference both dated 31/1/2025 are allowed in terms that:-a.The Tenant shall be allowed complete and quiet possession of the demised premises.b.The rent payable on the demised premises shall not be altered in anyway without complete compliance with the law.2. That the rent for the months of December, 2024, January and February 2025 is not payable and if already paid to be credited to future months in favour of the Tenant.3. That the Tenant is awarded costs assessed at Kshs.10,000/- to be offset from the rent payable.Those are the orders of these court.

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7THDAY OF MAY, 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS, HON. JOYCE MURIGI,PANEL CHAIRPERSON, MEMBER,BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL. BPRT.Ruling delivered in the presence of Tenant and Mr. Achola for the Landlord/Respondent.HON. NDEGWA WAHOME, MBS, HON. JOYCE MURIGI,PANEL CHAIRPERSON, MEMBER,BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL. BPRT.