Gachiri v Wambugu & another (Tribunal Case E084 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 394 (KLR) (21 August 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEBPRT 394 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case E084 of 2025
N Wahome, Chair & Joyce Murigi, Member
August 21, 2025
Between
Jidraph Waithaka Gachiri
Tenant
and
Patrick Wambugu
Landlord
and
simon Cicilly t/s Simrion Agencies
Respondent
Ruling
1.By the application dated 26th May 2025, the Tenant sought for the following reliefs,-i.Spentii.That an order compelling the Respondent’s to re-open the Applicant’s club known as Club Hashtug located at Bahati Sub-County.iii.That the Respondents be restrained from evicting the applicant from the said premises.iv.Costs be in the cause.
2.The application is founded on the reference dated 30th May 2025 which just like the application is anchored on Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301) hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.
3.In the reference, the Tenant grieved that the landlord-a.Has closed the premises known as Club Hashtug which belongs to the Tenant.b.Has threatened to evict the Tenant”.
4.The Tenant thereafter filed the further affidavit sworn on the 3/7/2025 and finally filed the submissions dated 8/7/2025. The case for the Tenant is that:-i.The Landlord had illegally closed down his premises on the 29/4/2025.ii.At the time that his business was closed, he had rent arrears of only Kshs. 10,000/- which he had committed to settle within the shortest time possible.iii.He did not have any pending bills with Kenya Power as he used a token to pay for the same and that the water bills were the responsibility of the landlord.iv.The Landlord by purporting to evict him had intended to install a new tenant at the premises.v.He had expended massive resources in renovating and restoring the premises.vi.He had paid part of the rent to the 2nd Respondent which seems not to have been accounted for.vii.This court needed to intervene and protect his tenancy.
5.In response, the Landlord and the agent filed the Replying Affidavit sworn on the 10/6/2025 by the Landlord. The respondents also filed the submissions dated 7//2025. We have perused all the fillings by the respective parties. In our view the issues that emerge for our determination are the following:-i.Whether the Tenant’s application dated 26/5/2025 has merit.ii.Who should bear the costs of this application.
Whether the Tenant’s application dated 26/5/2025 has merit.
6.At the onset, we would wish to observe that from the conflicting evidence by the parties, it may not be possible to reach a just determination of this without their respective evidence being tested for its veracity through cross-examination.
7.The Tenant claims to have no rent in arrears whereas the landlord claims Kshs.360,000/- from the Tenant. None of the parties have rendered a rental account for the court’s perusal. The landlord also seems not to have kept a rent book as envisaged by Sections 3(3), (4) and (5) of the Act.
8.The landlord also claims that the Tenant owed Kshs.136,641 in electricity bills whereas the later has asserted that he is upto date on payment of power which he pays through tokens. The same contestations are also rife in respect of payment of water bills.
9.What is not in dispute however is that the Respondents had locked up the Tenant’s premises. The same were only re-opened on the strength of the orders of this court which were issued on the 28/5/2025.
10.It is obvious that Cap. 301 is a law that is very deliberate and categorical on how the relationship of a Tenant and Landlord should be managed when the parties are together and when they are terminating their relationship. It does not entertain the actions as those of the Landlord in this case. It indeed frowns on the same.
11.In our view, the Tenant’s only recourse was to seek for the intervention of this court. The intervention sought was duly accommodated by the issuance of the orders made on the 28/5/2025. A departure from those orders would mean validation of the Landlords illegal actions.
12.We would therefore allow the Application on the terms that the Tenant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the reference dated 30/5/2025.
Who should bear the costs of the application.
13.The Tenant in his application had prayed that the costs be in the cause. We abide by that request only to add that the same shall follow the outcome of the reference.
14.In the final analysis, the orders that commend to us are the following:-i.That the application dated 26/5/2025 is granted in terms that the Tenant shall be allowed complete quiet possession of the demised premises otherwise known as Club Hashtug- Bahati pending the hearing and final disposal of the reference dated 30/5/2025.ii.That the Tenant shall settle all the undisputed rents in arrears in the next 15 days of the date hereof.iii.That costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference.Those are the orders of the court.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025. HON. NDEGWA WAHOME MBS,- -PANEL CHAIRPERSONHON. JOYCE MURIGI, - MEMBER, BUSINESS PREMSIES RENT TRIBUNAL. BPRT.Ruling delivered in the absence of the parties though aware of the date. The Registry to notify the parties of the Ruling.