Court rejects Sh10m Tatu City service charge demand
Construction works at Tatu City in September 2017.
A Ruiru court has dismissed a Sh10 million service charge claim demanded from one of the property owners at a multi-billion-shilling Tatu City real estate project.
Ruiru Chief Magistrate Joseph Were dismissed the claim by Tatu City Limited and Tatu Connect Sez Limited, a company allegedly incorporated for the preservation of the values and qualities of Tatu City.
The court was informed that Tatu City Limited has been providing services including maintaining natural open spaces, architectural and ornamental features, planting trees, and gardens, collecting and disposal of waste as well as security for common areas, among other services on behalf of property owners.
The company then demanded Sh10 plus interest from Home Bridge Limited, which owns 30 acres in the city, from 2016 to June 2021.
Mr Were dismissed the claim stating that the company did not show how it arrived at the charges, without the participation of the property owners.
“I note that the invoices issued by the Plaintiffs (Tatu City) did not provide for this assessment and formula and thus buttresses the Defendant's assertion in the various correspondence with the Plaintiff on the need to clarify the same,” the magistrate said.
The court said the assessment of the fees was to be undertaken after an audit had been done and the purchasers billed for actual expenditure taking into consideration the sizes of the parcels of the respective purchasers.
This, he noted, was not done and the only time it was done, the audit was questioned by the Home Bridge Limited.
The magistrate said in order to bill, Tatu City needed to operationalise the property owners association to enable it to undertake its mandate as provided in the agreements.
Mr Were said this will allow the participation of the purchasers and also ensure a transparent mechanism for the assessment and billing of the service charges and other charges expected from the purchasers of the parcels of land.
The court heard that a clause in the property owners association stated that the actual and future expenses should be prepared every three months and shared with the respective owners.
The owners were then required to pay in advance and a reconciliation would be made every three months.
The court was informed that Home Bridge Ltd paid Sh218, 484 in 2018 without raising questions.
In defence, Peter Karoki of Home Bridge Ltd said he questioned the assessment and charges raised and a meeting called did not resolve the issues. Instead, the firm was sued.
He told the court that the charges were unreasonable and not properly grounded on the property owners' association and lease agreements executed by the parties.
Mr Karoki further said the management company envisaged in the master declaration was to be an independent company and the sums payable were to be certified by an accountant.
