Njeri v Ngunjiri & 3 others [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR)

Njeri v Ngunjiri & 3 others (Tribunal Case E179 of 2022) [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR) (Civ) (15 July 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEBPRT 196 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal

Civil

Tribunal Case E179 of 2022

Gakuhi Chege, Vice Chair

July 15, 2022

Between

Ann Wanjiru Njeri

Applicant

and

Peter Ngunjiri

1st Respondent

Macharia Karanja

2nd Respondent

Netta Nyawira

3rd Respondent

Stephen Njau

4th Respondent

Ruling

1. This matter was instituted by the tenant seeking for restraining orders against the Respondents from interfering with her quiet occupation and lawful enjoyment of the suit premises located at Zimmerman, Kasarani pending hearing interpartes.

2. According to the tenant/applicant, she took the premises at a monthly rent of Kshs.10,000/-.

3. On 9th May 2022, this Tribunal was informed that the tenant vacated the suit premises in the month of April 2022. The Landlord’s counsel indicated that the tenant left with rent arrears and the matter was therefore listed for mention on 27th May 2022 to confirm the rent due.

4. On 27th May 2022, both counsels agreed to file submissions although the landlord’s counsel had already filed submissions dated 10th May 2022. According to the landlord, the tenant had leased two (2) units which are residential at a rent of Kshs.10,000/- per unit. The first unit was leased in September 2021 while the second unit was leased in November 2021.

5. In a replying affidavit sworn on 10th March 2022 at paragraph 5 the landlord deposes as follows:-“That the said units were leased to the applicant for purposes of residing and living only, since the houses user is residential and not commercial as the applicant has turned them (annexed herein are photographs of the houses marked as ‘PMN-01’)”.

6. It is therefore clear that the suit premises being residential and not business premises do not pass the test of a controlled tenancy and the instant proceedings were wrongly instituted before this Tribunal which has no jurisdiction under section 2(1) of Cap. 301Laws of Kenya.

7. Secondly, the tenant having vacated the suit premises, this Tribunal’s jurisdiction was lost as the landlord/tenant relationship ceased (see the case of Pritam -vs- Ratilal And Another (1977) E.A 560 at page 562).

8. In the premises, this Tribunal is unable to determine the issue of rent arrears claimed by the landlord which claim ought to be pursued in the ordinary courts as a civil debt.

9. I shall therefore proceed to strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction with costs to the Respondents.

10. In conclusion the following orders commend to me:-i. The instant proceedings are hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents for want of jurisdiction.ii. The Respondents costs are assessed at Kshs.20,000/- against the tenant/applicant.

It is so ordered.RULING DATED, SIGNED AND VIRTUALLY DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022. HON. GAKUHI CHEGEVICE CHAIRBUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALIn the presence of:Miss Mbaabu holding brief for Miss Charo for the RespondentNo appearance for the Tenant.