Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Wamai v Gathanju; James Maina Kariuki t/a Jesus Winner Ministry & another (Interested Parties) (Tribunal Case E014 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 420 (KLR) (26 September 2025) (Ruling)

Wamai v Gathanju; James Maina Kariuki t/a Jesus Winner Ministry & another (Interested Parties) (Tribunal Case E014 of 2025) [2025] KEBPRT 420 (KLR) (26 September 2025) (Ruling)
Citation
Wamai v Gathanju; James Maina Kariuki t/a Jesus Winner Ministry & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEBPRT 420 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 420 (KLR)
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Outcome
Struck out
Case number
Tribunal Case E014 of 2025
Attorneys
Ms. Ngugi h/b for Ms. Warenga,
Judges
J Osodo, Gakuhi Chege
Judgment date
26 September 2025
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (22.7 KB)
Collections
Date published
30 September 2025
Case action
Ruling
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
Matter struck out for want of jurisdiction and all interim orders are discharged. The landlord was at liberty to file the matter in the appropriate forum.
Skip to document content
1.Before considering the merits of this case, an issue of jurisdiction arises as follows;1.The landlord/applicant filed reference dated 3rd February 2025 under Section 12(4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301, with a complaint that the tenant had failed to pay rent since January 2024 and had refused to vacate the premises despite being served with a notice to terminate tenancy.
2.The landlord/applicant contemporaneously filed a notice of motion under a certificate of urgency of even date seeking that the application be certified as urgent, leave to evict the Tenant/Respondent from the premises located on LR No. Konyu/Baricho/836, that the OCS Karatina Police Station be directed to provide security during the exercise and that the costs of the application be borne by the Tenant/Respondent.
3.On 24th February 2025, the tribunal at a hearing issued eviction orders.
4.The intended interested party, the Board of Trustees of Jesus Winner Ministry filed an application dated 28th March 2025 seeking to be enjoined as an interested party, have their advocates considered to be properly on record, and for setting aside of the Tribunal’s ruling of 24th February 2025 for the matter to be heard afresh. They also sought for temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the landlord from evicting or interfering with their quiet possession of LR No. Konyu/Baricho/836, with the OCS Karatina ensuring compliance.
5.Additionally, they request that the status quo as at 23rd March 2025 be maintained, that they be served with all pleadings, and costs be provided for.
6.The supporting affidavit states that the premises are used by Jesus Winner Ministry Karatina Branch, leases were signed on their behalf, and eviction would prejudice them given a pending related civil case, while no prejudice would be suffered by the landlord or respondents if the orders are granted.
7.The Intended Interested Party also depones that the tenant herein was a pastor under Jesus Winner Ministry in charge of Karatina Branch but has since resigned. A copy of the resignation letter is annexed as ‘RW 3’.
8.The landlord in his written submissions stated that upon the grant of possession of the suit premises to the tenant herein, a church building was constructed on the subject property.
9.Based on the affidavits filed, it is evident that the nature of business at the suit premises is a church.
10.The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya in respect of controlled tenancies.
11.The respondent/tenant and the Intended interested party are running a church and according to the Oxford Advanced Dictionary, a Church is defined as follows: -“A Christian house of worship, a building where Christian religious services take place”
12.It is therefore clear that the user of the suit premises is neither “a shop, hotel nor catering establishment” within the meaning and interpretation of Section 2(1) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over the instant dispute.
13.Although the issue of jurisdiction with regard to the tenant being a church has not been raised by either party before us, we are entitled to consider it on our own motion at any stage of the proceedings in line with the Court of Appeal decision in Jamal Salim v Yusuf Abdulahi Abdi & another Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2016 [2018] eKLR where it was stated as follows: -“Jurisdiction either exists or it does not. Neither can it be acquiesced or granted by consent of the parties. This much was appreciated by this Court in Adero & Another v Ulinzi Sacco Society Limited [2002] 1 KLR 577, as follows;1)……..2)The jurisdiction either exists or does not ab initio …3)Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties or be assumed on the grounds that parties have acquiesced in actions which presume the existence of such jurisdiction.4)Jurisdiction is such an important matter that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal.”
14.Consequently, this Tribunal has no option but to down its tools in line with the Locus Classicus case of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) eKLR where it was held as follows at pages 8-9/27: -“………………. I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction”.
15.We therefore find and hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant dispute and the same is a candidate for striking out. The interim orders given in the matter having been issued in error ought to be discharged/set aside forthwith.
Orders
16.In conclusion, the following final orders commend to us;a.This matter is struck out for want of jurisdiction and all interim orders are discharged.b.The landlord is at liberty to file the matter in the appropriate forum.It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY of SEPTEMBER 2025.HON. JOYCE AKINYI OSODO - (PANEL CHAIRPERSON)BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNALHON. GAKUHI CHEGE - (PANEL MEMBER)Ruling delivered in the presence of; -Ms. Ngugi h/b for Ms. Warenga for LandlordMuchangi for Interested PartiesTenant Absent.
▲ To the top