Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Wangui & another v Gachie & another (Tribunal Case E294 & E768 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEBPRT 386 (KLR) (29 August 2025) (Judgment)

Wangui & another v Gachie & another (Tribunal Case E294 & E768 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEBPRT 386 (KLR) (29 August 2025) (Judgment)
Citation
Wangui & another v Gachie & another [2025] KEBPRT 386 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 386 (KLR)
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Outcome
Allowed
Case number
Tribunal Case E294 of 2023
Judges
J Osodo, Gakuhi Chege
Judgment date
29 August 2025
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (23.9 KB)
Collections
Date published
08 September 2025
Case action
Judgment
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
The notice to terminate tenancy dated 23rd February 2023 declared invalid and of no effect.The tenants reference dated 16th March 2023 allowed.Costs of this reference are awarded to the tenants.
Skip to document content
A. Dispute Background
1.The Tenants/Applicants moved this Tribunal vide a reference under Section 12 (4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishment) Act Cap 301, dated 16th March, 2023 which concerns the business premises known as Plot No. 400, Ruiru where they complained that the respondents herein served them with a defective notice to terminate tenancy although they are not the applicants’ known landlords and were thus causing harassment.
2.A hearing was conducted on 5th May 2025 with each party presenting 2 witnesses. After hearing, the parties filed their respective written submissions. The landlord’s written submissions are dated 28th May 2025 and the tenants’ submissions are dated 3rd June 2025.
3.The tenant, Emma Wangari Wangui, entered into a tenancy agreement with the late Naomi Gachie on 2nd September 2017 at a monthly rent of KES. 40,000/=, payable in advance. The said Naomi Gachie has since passed on, as shown by the Chief’s letter dated 26th April 2023, which confirms her demise and indicates that the landlords herein are her signatories.
4.A notice of termination of tenancy dated 23rd February 2023 was thereafter issued by the landlords to the tenants, citing expiry of the lease and intended redevelopment of the premises. The validity of this notice is at the centre of the dispute.
5.The tenants, Emma Wangari and Joseph Munyiri (who entered into a partnership deed dated 11th December 2019), have opposed the notice on grounds that there are no rent arrears, the partnership does not amount to subletting, and that they have made substantial developments on the premises worth about KES. 8,000,000/=.
B. Issues for Determination and Analysis
6.The following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the notice of termination dated 23rd February 2023 is valid.b.Who shall bear the costs?
Issue (a): Whether the termination notice dated 23rd February 2023 is valid
7.The landlords relied on the 2017 lease, arguing that it lapsed in September 2022. However, the tenants contend that they applied for renewal on 30th November 2022 and continued to pay rent, which was accepted by the landlords’ agents, Lemka Agency.
8.At the hearing of 5th May 2025, the 1st landlord testified that upon expiry of the lease, they discovered that their agent, Lemka Agency, had continued collecting rent from the tenants. This admission further proves that the tenancy relationship continued beyond the expiry of the written agreement, rendering it a controlled tenancy under Cap 301.
9.The confirmation of grant produced by the landlords relates to Kamothai/Kiambururu/728, a parcel distinct from the suit property. The said confirmation of grant therefore does not apply to this matter which is in respect to Plot No. 400, Ruiru.
10.The court shall therefore rely on The Chief’s letter of 26th April 2023 which confirms that Naomi Gachie is deceased and that the respondents/landlords herein are her respective signatories.
11.We find that the landlord herein had the right to issue the impugned notice to terminate tenancy in respect of Plot No. 400, Ruiru
12.The ground stated in the notice to terminate tenancy herein is as follows;“As the administrators of the estate of the Kirimi Gachie (Deceased) we wish to undertake a development by demolishing the existing premises and build a modern building”
7.On redevelopment, Section 7(1)(g) of Cap 301 requires clear evidence of intention to reconstruct. The landlords admitted at the hearing that they lacked approvals from the County Government of Kiambu, NEMA certification, or building plans.
8.In Mohamed Ali Baadi & Others v Attorney General & 11 Others [2018] eKLR, the Court underscored that:“There must be documentary evidence, especially from statutory agencies, to support any alleged development or redevelopment. In the absence of such evidence, the bona fides of the alleged redevelopment is called into question.”
7.The notice of termination dated 23rd February 2023 is unproved in absence of genuine proof of redevelopment which is the ground for termination indicated in the said notice.
Issue (b)Who shall bear the costs?
19.The general principle is that costs follow the event. In Cecilia Karuru Ngayu v Barclays Bank of Kenya & Another [2016] eKLR, the Court held:“The issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court, but the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless there is good reason to depart from this rule.”
19.The tenants, having succeeded, are entitled to costs of the reference.
C. Final Orders
19.Accordingly, we make the following final orders:a.The notice to terminate tenancy dated 23rd February 2023 is declared invalid and of no effect.b.The tenants reference dated 16th March 2023 is allowed.c.Costs of this reference are awarded to the tenants.It is so ordered.
JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025.HON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON GAKUHI CHEGE - (MEMBER)In the presence of:Kemboi holding brief for Ms. Waceke for TenantMbundi holding brief for Mwangi for Landlord
▲ To the top