SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Naomi Njoki Njau v Francis Mbiyu S. Nguru & 2 others [2021] KEBPRT 357 (KLR)

[2021] KEBPRT 357 (KLR) Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Case number
357
Citation
[2021] KEBPRT 357 (KLR)
Decided
10 August 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and TenantPostureApplication for termination of tenancy and attachment of goodsCoramHON. GAKUHI CHEGE, Charagu for the Applicant's
Holding

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute as it is a land ownership claim.

Facts

The Respondent, Naomi Njoki Njau, was a tenant in the suit premises, paying a monthly rent of Kshs.7000/- in respect of plot no. 21, Karuri Market, Kiambu county. She had expressed an interest to purchase the property from the deceased's family in 1993, but later rescinded the agreement. The Respondent and Stephen Njoroge Mirie entered into a sale agreement on 4th May 1993, with a deposit of Kshs.200,000/-, but the sale was later revoked. The Applicants, Francis Mbiyu S. Nguru and Grace Wanjiku Ngumi, claimed jurisdiction over the matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought
  2. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the proceedings

Reasoning

The sale agreement entered into on 4th May 1993 was not declared null and void by any court of competent jurisdiction, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has paid rent to the Applicants or any other person to create a fresh Landlord/Tenant relationship.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian” S – vs- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) e KLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case