AVTAR SINGH BAHRA & AMARJIT KAUR BAHRA v RAJU GOVINDJI GANATRA T/A SWEETBITE MANUFACTURERS [2001] KEHC 375 (KLR)

AVTAR SINGH BAHRA & AMARJIT KAUR BAHRA v RAJU GOVINDJI GANATRA T/A SWEETBITE MANUFACTURERS [2001] KEHC 375 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

(Milimani Law Courts)

CIV SUIT 545 OF 98

        AVTAR SINGH BAHRA                                                                                    

AMARJIT KAUR BAHRA …..…………………..……….. PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

 RAJU GOVINDJI GANATRA                                                                       

T/A SWEETBITE MANUFACTURERS …………......….…. DEFENDANT

RULING

This ruling arises from a preliminary point raised by Mr. Rommel Da Gama Rose advocate for the defendant. His point was:- “Is there an actionable claim for breaches of lease dated the 15 th September, 1995 in relation to Land Reference Number 209/9831 when the claim is prosecuted by Third parties and not by the registered absolute owner of the property.”

In my view, the answer to the question Mr. Rommel Da Gama Rose raises is simple. As submitted by Mr. Goswani for the defendant, a party does not need to have title to a property for him to create a lease. The authority for that is to be found in Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol. 15 para 455 and 456 where it is stated:- “The relationship of landlord and tenant may be brought into being even though the landlord has no title to the land of which he has purported to create a tenancy. If a landlord, who has no title to do so, grants a lease under seal, the tenant, being a party to the deed, is estopped from disputing his lessor’s title. The doctrine of estoppel between the landlord and tenant is not, however, confined to leases by deed.

Generally, a tenant is estopped from disputing the title at the time of the demise of the landlord by whom he has been let into possession; …… The doctrine of estoppel which operates between landlord and tenant applies to tenancies from year to year, at will, or on sufferance, as well as to leases for years.” For the above reasons, the preliminary objection is overruled with costs.

Dated at Nairobi this 3rd day of August, 2001.

T. MBALUTO

JUDGE

▲ To the top

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 48

Judgment 48
1. North End Trading Company Limited (Carrying on the Business under the registered name of Kenya Refuse Handlers Limited v City Council of Nairobi (Civil Case 731 of 2008) [2019] KEHC 10180 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (24 January 2019) (Judgment) Explained 30 citations
2. Matulai v Mwikya (Civil Appeal 12 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 1909 (KLR) (22 February 2024) (Judgment) 1 citation
3. Ngugi v Karanja & another (Civil Appeal 161 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 2368 (KLR) (27 March 2023) (Judgment) Explained 1 citation
4. Abdullahi v First Community Bank Ltd & another (Civil Suit 344 of 2016) [2024] KEHC 15745 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 December 2024) (Judgment) Explained
5. Amauda v Thuo (Civil Appeal E041 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 16811 (KLR) (14 November 2025) (Judgment) Mentioned
6. Chakera & another v County Government of Mombasa (Environment & Land Case 38 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 5295 (KLR) (17 July 2024) (Judgment) Explained
7. Chirchir v Chairman BOM Kiptalal Primary School Joshua Rono & another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2365 (KLR) (30 June 2022) (Judgment) Explained
8. Equity Bank Limited v Tata Africa Holdings (Kenya) Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal E008 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 22337 (KLR) (19 September 2023) (Judgment) Explained
9. Gitimu v Dhido & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Hasna Hussein Dido - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E074 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 5643 (KLR) (22 May 2024) (Judgment) Mentioned
10. Giturwa & another v Cittimark Investment Limited (Environment & Land Case 23 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 14550 (KLR) (1 November 2022) (Judgment) Explained