Mwangi v Kinuthai [2025] KEBPRT 326 (KLR)

Mwangi v Kinuthai (Tribunal Case E044 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 326 (KLR) (16 June 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEBPRT 326 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Tribunal Case E044 of 2025

CN Mugambi, Chair

June 16, 2025

Between

Peter Mwaura Mwangi

Tenant

and

Josephine Njeri Kinuthai

LandLady

Ruling

Introduction 1. The Tenant’s Application dated 13. 3.2025 seeks orders that the Respondent be ordered to reconnect the Tenant’s electricity supply in default of which the Tenant is to be allowed to reconnect the same with the assistance of the Commercial Engineer KPLC, Gilgil Substation. The Tenant has also sought for orders that the Respondent be injuncted from in any way interfering with the Tenant’s tenancy in the suit premises pending the hearing of the Tenant’s Reference. Police assistance through the OCS Gilgil Police Station has also been sought in the enforcement of the orders sought.

The Tenant’s deposition 2. The Tenant’s affidavit in support of the Application may be summarized as follows hereunder;-a.That he has been occupying the suit premises paying a monthly rent of Kshs. 5,000/=.b.That on 10. 3.2025, the Respondent maliciously disconnected the Tenant’s power supply and verbally threatened the Tenant with eviction.c.That the disconnection of the electricity power supply has made it impossible for the Tenant to carry out his welding business.d.That no lawful notice has ever been served upon the Tenant.

The Landlord’s depositions 3. The Landlord’s replying affidavit may be summarized as follows;-a.That the Applicant has never been a Tenant of the Respondent as he was the Tenant of the previous owner of the suit premises.b.That the Respondent lawfully purchased the suit premises in the year 2023 January and found pre-existing electricity and water bills.c.That upon the Respondent’s acquisition of the property, the Tenant requested to be allowed to remain in the premises while the Respondent carried out renovations.d.That the Tenant continued to operate from the premises even after the renovations although he had never entered into any lease agreement with the Respondent, the Tenant had also not made any rent payments to the Respondent.e.It is further deposed that the Tenant has not made any investments on the suit premises.f.That after leasing the suit premises to a third party M/S Macdonald Estates Ltd, a meeting was held between the parties herein and the third party wherein it was agreed that the Tenant would vacate the premises by 31. 3.2025. g.That the disconnection of the power supply was carried out solely by KPLC.

Analysis and determination 4. Both parties have filed their submissions and I have read the same. The issues which arise for determination in this Application are in my view the following;-a.Whether there exists a Landlord/Tenant relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent herein.b.Whether the Tenant is entitled to the orders sought in his Application.

Issue A: Whether there exists a Landlord/Tenant relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent herein. 5. The Landlord’s contestation that there does not exist a Landlord/Tenant relationship between the parties is premised on the fact that the landlord purchased the suit premises from the previous owner and that the Respondent does not have any lease agreement with the Tenant and neither has he been paid any rent by the Tenant. The Tenant has not filed any affidavit to show that he has been paying rent to the Respondent but he has stated in his submissions that he has been paying rent to the Landlord. What is clear though, is that the Tenant continued in occupation of the suit premises even after the Respondent purchased the same. It would be right to say that the Respondent inherited the tenancy that had existed prior to his purchase of the property with all its incidences. There being no evidence of a written agreement between the Tenant and the previous owner of the premises, it will be safe to assume that the said tenancy was a controlled tenancy and that is the tenancy that the Respondent herein inherited. The sale of the suit premises to the Respondent did not extinguish the rights of the Tenant and the protection the Tenant enjoys under Cap 301 and neither did the said sale terminate the controlled tenancy that had earlier existed.

6. On this issue, I do therefore return a finding that there exists a Landlord/Tenant relationship between the parties herein and that further, the same having not been reduced into writing, it amounts to a controlled tenancy and the Tenant is thereby a protected Tenant.

7. In view of the foregoing, if the Respondent is desirous of evicting the Tenant or terminating the tenancy herein, then the Respondent is obligated to follow the provisions of Section 4(2) of Cap 301 as read together with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the same Act.

Issue B: Whether the Tenant is entitled to the orders sought in his Application. 8. The Tenant has sought an order that the Respondent be compelled to reconnect electricity supply to the suit premises. The Respondent on his part has responded that electricity supply was disconnected by Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd (KPLC) due to pending bills. The Tenant had on 3. 04. 2025, informed the court that he had a metre and was paying electricity bills directly to KPLC through his phone, the court then ordered him to file an affidavit evidencing evidence of such payments, the Tenant never filed the further affidavit.

9. I am not able to compel the Respondent to reconnect the power supply to the Tenant as the Tenant has not demonstrated that it is the Respondent and not KPLC who disconnected the electricity. However, since the Tenant has stated that he pays his power bills directly to KPLC, I have no difficulties in allowing his prayer that he reconnects the power supply with the assistance of the management of KPLC who should in any event be in a position to establish whether indeed the Tenant has paid his bills as he alleges.

10. The Tenant has also made a prayer that the Respondent should be restrained from in any manner interfering with the Tenant’s tenancy pending the hearing of the Reference filed by the Tenant. I have already observed that the Tenant is a protected Tenant under the provisions of Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya. As such, the Respondent is required by the law to adhere to the provisions of the said Act while dealing with the tenancy herein. I do not therefore find any difficulties, again, in restraining the Respondent from illegally interfering with the Tenant’s use and occupation of the suit premises.

Disposition 11. In disposing of this Application, I will therefore make the following orders;-a.That the Tenant is at liberty to reconnect the electricity supply to the suit premises with the assistance of the management of Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd and at his own cost.b.That the Respondent is restrained from evicting the Tenant or in any other manner interfering with the Applicant’s tenancy of the suit premises contrary to the provisions of Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya pending the hearing of the Tenant’s Reference.c.That each party will bear their own costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE,2025. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI - CHAIRPERSONBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALDelivered in the presence of Mr. Mukere holding brief for Mr. Kabuku for the Respondent and in the absence of the TenantCourt: Mention on 9. 7.2025 for directions. Mention notice to issue.