William Njoroge Kubai v Hamilton Ayiera Nyaga [2021] KEBPRT 648 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

BPRT 587 OF 2019 (NAIROBI)

WILLIAM NJOROGE KUBAI..................................LANDLORD/APPLICANT

VERSUS

HAMILTON AYIERA NYAGA.....................................TENANT/RESPONDENT

RULING

The Landlord’s notice to terminate tenancy is found in the notice dated 10th March 2021.  The ground upon which the termination was sought is;

“You have failed to pay rent for the last 77 monthsamounting to Kshs 142,000/-“.

The Landlord on 21st June 2019 also filed a reference referring to the Tribunal a complaint relating to:

“Termination of tenancy pursuant to final orders of the Tribunal having been issued against Hamilton Aiera Nyaga.  The Tenant has refused or ignored to vacate despite a notice to terminate tenancy effecting 1st June 2019 being dully served.”

On 24th October 2019, a consent order as between the parties herein was recorded in the following terms;

1. The County Ward Administrator in charge of Korogocho Ward shall inspect the kiosks in dispute and confirm whether the kiosks are in the road reserve or are on the plot of the Landlord (plot No 101/Korogocho).

2. The Inspection shall be done in the presence of the parties on a date to be set by the Ward Administrator.

3. Mention on4th November 2019.

4. The above orders shall be served by the Advocate for the Landlord.

Pursuant to the above orders, the Korogocho Ward Administrator, one Mr S.N. Karanja filed his report on4th December 2019. The report is dated 12th November 2019.

According to the report by Mr Karanja;

i. The Applicant and the Respondent are both Landlords whose plots bear frontages on the road reserve.

ii. The structures have been built on the respective frontages.

iii. The law gives exclusive rights to the property owner for the user of the frontage.

iv. The Defendant continues to enjoy and profit from both frontages in violation of the Applicant’s rights and privileges.

v. The Respondent ought to be restrained form violating the Applicant’s rights.

I am unable to say at this juncture whether the Landlord/Applicant herein is truly the Landlord to the Tenant/Respondent in view of the findings by the Ward Administrator.  I am also unable to link this report to the notice of termination of tenancy and the reference filed by the Landlord/Applicant.  This clarity of facts can only be demonstrated upon a full hearing of the reference.

I, therefore, direct that the reference by the Landlord/Applicant be fixed for hearing.  The Landlord is also free to make the relevant application to the Tribunal if the Tenant has not opposed the notice to terminate.

It is so ordered.

HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBI

CHAIRMAN

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL

Ruling dated, signed and delivered this 3rd day of March, 2021 by Hon P. May (Vice Chair) in the presence of the Landlord/Applicant in person and in the absence of the Respondent.

HON. P. MAY

VICE CHAIR

BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL