Simon Wahome t/a Peni Ltd v Simon Waweru Macharia [2019 eKLR Case Summary

Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Naivasha
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Mbichi Mboroki (Chairman)
Judgment Date
September 20, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2019 eKLR case summary of Simon Wahome t/a Peni Ltd v Simon Waweru Macharia. Discover key judgments, legal implications, and insights into the ruling.

Case Brief: Simon Wahome t/a Peni Ltd v Simon Waweru Macharia [2019 eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Simon Wahome T/A Peni Ltd vs. Simon Waweru Macharia
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 22 of 2017 (Naivasha)
- Court: Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Date Delivered: 20th September 2019
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Mbichi Mboroki (Chairman)
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around whether the landlord, Simon Waweru Macharia, has a valid ground for terminating the tenancy of the tenant, Simon Wahome, based on his intention to occupy the premises for his own business use, and whether this notice was issued in good faith.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved are Simon Wahome, the tenant, who has operated a wines and spirits shop in the premises since 1994, and Simon Waweru Macharia, the landlord, who acquired ownership in 2004. The landlord issued a notice on 28th August 2017 to terminate the tenancy effective from 1st December 2017, claiming he needed the premises for his business, East Gate Merchants Ltd, which sells water. The tenant contested the notice, asserting he had occupied the premises for 26 years and had no written tenancy agreement.

4. Procedural History:
The tenant filed a reference in the Tribunal under Section 6 of Cap 301 after receiving the landlord's termination notice. The Tribunal heard evidence from both parties and reviewed written submissions. The landlord's claim was based on Section 7(1) of Cap 301, which permits termination if the landlord intends to occupy the premises for business purposes for at least one year.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statute under consideration is Section 7(1) of Cap 301, which allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy if they intend to occupy the premises for their business or residence for not less than one year.
- Case Law: Previous cases regarding tenancy and landlord-tenant relationships were referenced to establish precedents on good faith and the landlord's right to terminate a lease. The Tribunal examined whether the landlord's intentions were genuine and if he had the capacity to establish his business at the premises.
- Application: The Tribunal evaluated the evidence presented, noting that the landlord had sufficient resources and a firm intention to use the premises as a depot for his water business. Despite the tenant's long-standing occupancy, the Tribunal found that the landlord's notice was issued in good faith, as he demonstrated a legitimate need for the space.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the landlord, dismissing the tenant's reference and allowing the termination notice. The tenant was ordered to vacate the premises by 1st April 2020, with the Tribunal indicating that each party would bear its own costs. This ruling underscores the landlord's rights to reclaim property for business purposes, provided the intention is genuine.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this case, as the judgement was delivered by the Chairman alone.

8. Summary:
The case concluded with the Tribunal favoring the landlord's request for termination of the tenancy based on his credible intention to use the premises for business. The ruling reinforces the legal framework allowing landlords to reclaim their properties for personal use, emphasizing the necessity for good faith in such requests. The case highlights the balance between tenant rights and landlord interests in civil tenancy disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.