A dispute involving the sale of a prime property owned by the independence party Kanu in Nanyuki town, Laikipia County, has intensified after the traders occupying the premises moved to court to block the planned disposal.
The former ruling party had already entered into an agreement with a local businessman, Mr Samuel Koinange, for the sale of the property at Sh120 million but the legal dispute has delayed the sealing of the transaction.
The deal started in 2023 and the traders were to be evicted by Kanu in May 2024 to pave the way for the new owner to take over.
The purchaser intended to demolish and rebuild the premises to increase revenue, given its strategic location in the central business district. The sale was part of the party’s strategy rolled out in 2021 to generate funds to strengthen its political operations.
However, the traders sued at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Nyeri, which rendered a ruling last month endorsing Kanu’s plan to evict them.
The tribunal had ordered the traders to vacate the Kanu Building by May 15, 2025, failure to which the landlord (Kanu Secretary-General) would be at liberty to forcefully evict them using licensed auctioneers.
Aggrieved by the ruling, the tenants resisted and have escalated the dispute to the Environment and Lands court, where they obtained a temporary order blocking the intended eviction. They want the tribunal’s decision quashed.
Court papers indicate that the sale agreement dated June 12, 2023, was signed by the Kanu Secretary-General on behalf of the seller and Mr Koinange on behalf of the purchaser.
Pending the hearing and determination of the case, they received the court’s approval to continue operating on the premises. The property situated at the Nanyuki central business district hosts various businesses including eateries, restaurants, coffee and beauty shops, as well as stalls.
The traders’ case against the intended eviction is that they have valid lease agreements with the Kanu Laikipia East branch and the planned sale does not address the continuity of their tenancy. They argue that the sale could not lawfully proceed without their involvement as tenants.
Led by businessman Charles Gitonga, who has been a tenant in the building since 2009, paying Sh37,000 monthly rent, they stated that their challenge to the eviction notice was on the basis that some lease terms had not yet expired. He stated he was aware that the notice was issued due to the intended sale.
While conceding that a landlord is entitled to deal with their property, he asserted that such dealings must involve the tenant, especially where a tenancy agreement is in force.
Since the eviction notices were issued by the party secretary-general, George Wainana, who described himself as the landlord, the traders argue that their landlord was Kanu Laikipia East, which, in their view, was distinct from Kanu headquartered in Nairobi.
Political party and land ownership
The property is registered as LR.No. 2787/322 Nanyuki Municipality and the owner is named as Kanu Laikipia East Branch. The grant had been issued to Kanu Nanyuki Laikipia Branch.
However, the party secretary-general had denied at the tribunal that branches of political parties could independently own property, asserting that ownership remained with the main party structure.
Independence party Kanu battles Nanyuki traders over sale of Sh120 million property.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
He also acknowledged that no architectural plans for redevelopment had been prepared or filed. He testified that applications for demolition and reconstruction had been made.
Mr Wainaina stated that the legal proceedings had delayed completion of the sale due to the lack of vacant possession.
He submitted that the sale agreement required vacant possession as a condition for completion of the transaction. He emphasised that the eviction was necessary to also allow demolition and redevelopment of the premises to improve commercial viability.
The sale agreement stipulated vacant possession as a precondition for the payment and testified that redevelopment plans were intended to enhance the use of the CBD-located property.
Mr Wainaina added that he had the authority to sell the property, stating that Kanu had since transitioned from a society to a registered political party.
He testified that the principal reason for the termination of the tenancies was the intended sale of the property, although he was uncertain as to whether this constituted a valid ground under the applicable tenancy law.
Mr Wainaina acknowledged the existence of tenant improvements on the premises but maintained that he was unwilling to compensate the tenants for any improvements.
Termination notices validity
On the validity of the termination notices, the landlord maintained that the notices dated May 27, 2024, complied with Section 4(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, and Catering Establishments) Act.
The notices were in the prescribed form, provided more than the requisite notice period of two months, and detailed the grounds for termination.
For their part, the tenants disputed the validity of terminating the tenancies on the basis that ownership of the suit premises was changing hands, arguing that such a reason is not contemplated under the Act.
According to the tenants, it is the incoming landlord, and not the outgoing landlord, who holds the discretion to decide whether to terminate a tenancy.
They also contended that the uncertainty surrounding the completion of the ownership transfer rendered that ground untenable as a basis for terminating tenancy agreements.
