Samuel Kigathi Gachara & Peter Mungai Gathumbi v Joan Njoki Ndungi (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of James Samuel Gichuru (Deceased) [2022] KEBPRT 101 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. E574 OF 2021 (NAIROBI)

SAMUEL KIGATHI GACHARA........................................................................TENANT

PETER MUNGAI GATHUMBI...........................................................................TENANT

AND

JOAN NJOKI NDUNGI (Sued as the legal representative of the

Estate ofJAMES SAMUEL GICHURU (Deceased)......................................LANDLORD

RULING

1. This Tribunal was moved on 12th October 2021 by a notice of motion application under certificate of urgency by the Tenants Samuel Gachara and Peter Gathumbi.  They sought protection claiming that the Landlord was interfering with their business and threatening to levy distress which protection they got via orders of 13th October 2021.

2. The dispute arises from a disputed succession cause.  The Tenants are caught in between a family row.  They have always had a lease with the administrators of the estate of Gathumbi Komu.  Initially, the paid rent to John Gitau Gichuru and upon his demise rent was paid to Phylis Mukami Gitau.  Upon her demise the children of John Gitau Gichuru could not agree on who was to be paid rent.  Monthly rent is Kshs 320,000/- and the Respondent herein is demanding Kshs 360,000/- per month.

3. I have taken the liberty to peruse the documents filed and the submissions and particularly ELC No 322 of 2018 which was between Peter Gathumbi, Peter Mungai and James Njenga Vs Joan Njoki Ndungi and Persia Muthoni Masinde (Interested Party) all suing as administrators of the estate of Gathumbi Komu, James Samuel Gichuru and John Gitau Gichuru respectively.

4. In my view, the ruling dealt with the issue before me and I need not revisit the same particularly from page 16 onwards.  It reads in part;

“The Plaintiff and the Tenants on the suit property being aware that the Defendant was the duly appointed administratix of the estate of the deceased had a duty to pay rent due to the estate to her in that capacity.  It was up to the Defendant to account to the Interested Party as a beneficiary of the estate for such rent..”

5. I need not say more.  I find this matter to be res judicata and should not be before us to issue orders contrary to the High Court.  An appeal review of the order would be most appropriate.

6. I therefore find the application and reference lacks merit and dismiss the same with costs.

7. Funds held by the Tribunal be and is hereby released to the Landlord who is at liberty to distress for rent in case there is any arrears.

8. The rent increament can only be done with leave of this Tribunal and as such, the rent will stay at Kshs 320,000/- per month.

HON A. MUMA

VICE CHAIR

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY BY HON A. MUMA THIS 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 in the presence of Ngaruiyafor theTenantsand in the absence of the Landlord.

HON A. MUMA

VICE CHAIR

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL