[2021] KEBPRT 77 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the landlord had demonstrated a genuine and settled intention to undertake substantial renovations to the premises, which could not be effected while the tenant remained in occupation. The notice to terminate tenancy complied with the statutory requirements under Cap. 301, and the evidence,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEBPRT 77 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alfonce Bwire; Respondent: Gabriel Otuchi
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E025 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Landlord's notice to terminate tenancy upheld; tenant ordered to vacate; costs awarded to landlord.
- Legal Topics
- Termination of Tenancy, Landlord Renovation Rights, Rent Arrears, Eviction Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfonce Bwire
Applicant
Gabriel Otuchi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the landlord's notice to terminate the tenancy for purposes of renovation should be upheld.
- 2 Whether the landlord has demonstrated a genuine intention to undertake substantial renovations.
- 3 Who is liable to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the landlord had demonstrated a genuine and settled intention to undertake substantial renovations to the premises, which could not be effected while the tenant remained in occupation. The notice to terminate tenancy complied with the statutory requirements under Cap. 301, and the evidence, including photographs and oral testimony, established the need for repairs due to the risk posed by the anthill. The tenant's objections were insufficient to outweigh the landlord's right to renovate, especially as the tenant confirmed the existence of the anthill and prior damage. The tribunal therefore upheld the landlord's notice and ordered the tenant to vacate, with costs...
Court Disposition
Landlord's notice to terminate tenancy upheld; tenant ordered to vacate; costs awarded to landlord.
Orders
- The landlord’s notice of termination of tenancy dated 6th August 2021 is upheld.
- The tenant shall vacate from the suit premises on or before 31st January 2022, failing which the landlord may evict him through licensed auctioneers.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
VIEW PARK TOWERS 7TH & 8TH FLOOR
TRIBUNAL CASE NO. E025 OF 2021 (KAKAMEGA)
ALFONCE BWIRE....................................................................APPLICANT/TENANT
VERSUS
GABRIEL OTUCHI.........................................................RESPONDENT/LANDLORD
JUDGMENT
1. Through a tenancy notice dated 6th August 2021, the Landlord is seeking vacant possession of the premises occupied by the tenant with effect from 1st November 2021 to enable him carry out major renovation thereof.
2. The landlord seeks further to recover rent arrears from the tenant.
3. The notice is opposed through a reference dated 19th August 2021 by way of Viva Voce evidence on 28/10/2021 when both parties testified without calling any witnesses
4. It was the landlord’s case that the demised premises was at the verge of falling down on account of anthill on the floor thereof and at the neighbouring plot. The premises needed renovation although the tenant was objecting.
5. The landlord produced photographs to show destruction occasioned by ants to the house as exhibits “P. 1 (a)-(c)”. He stated that he needed to remove the floor and destroy the anthill together with the roof for repair purposes. He feared that the house might fall and injure the occupants.
6. He stated that he had money to undertake the repairs. In cross-examination, the landlord stated that the tenant had been in occupation of the premises for 7 years. He was denied permission by the tenant to take photos inside the premises. The Assistant Chief in an attempt to resolve the matter visited the premises on five (5) occasions in vain.
7. The tenant on his part testified that he had been a tenant for the last 7 years. He confirmed that there was an anthill in the corridor between the landlord’s house and that of the neighbour.
8. The tenant testified that he alerted the landlord about the anthill and was told to ignore it.
9. He stated that the ants had started to destroy the roof but he sprayed the timber with pesticides.
10. In September, the landlord informed the tenant that he had increased rent from Kshs.3000/- to Kshs.5000/- and refused to negotiate the increment. As a result, the tenant acceded to the increment.
11. It is the tenant’s case that he has no alternative site for his business. He stated that the suit premises had no problem as the white ants were not on his side of the premises. The shelves were intact.
12. According to the tenant in cross-examination, the corridor is only 6 inches and nobody can pass between the suit premises and the neighbours plot. When the landlord sent an elder, the tenant confirmed that he insisted on being served with notice.
13. I am now called upon to determine whether to uphold the notice to terminate tenancy or dismiss it. I am further required to determine who is liable to pay costs.
14. I had the advantage of listening to the case orally and the landlord impressed me as a truthful witness. I saw in him a genuine and settled intention to undertake substantial renovations to the suit premises which cannot be done while the tenant remained in occupation.
15. The tenant confirmed existence of an anthill in the narrow corridor between the landlord’s house and that of the neighbor. He confirmed that at one point the ants started to destroy the roof of the suit premises which he sprayed with pesticides.
16. I have looked at the notice to terminate served upon the tenant and the same complies with section 4(1) as read with section 7(1) (f) of Cap. 301, Laws of Kenya.
17. In the premises, I find and hold that the Landlord has demonstrated a genuine and settled intention to undertake the proposed renovations in line with the decision in Auto Engineering Ltd -vs- M. Gonella & Co. Ltd (1998) eKLR.
18. I therefore proceed to make the following orders in this matter:-
(i) The landlord’s notice of termination of tenancy dated 6th August 2021 is hereby upheld.
(ii) The tenant shall vacate from the suit premises to give way for the intended renovations on or before 31st January 2022 failing which the landlord shall be at liberty to evict him through a licenced auctioneers.
(iii) The OCS, Ogalo Police Station to provide security during enforcement of the eviction order.
(iv) Costs to the landlord assessed at Kshs.10,000/- against the tenant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 VIRTUALLY.
HON. GAKUHI CHEGE
VICE CHAIR
BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
TENANT IN PERSON
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE LANDLORD