Wilson aircraft operator saved from eviction in rent dispute

A section of Wilson Airport. FILE PHOTO | NMG

By SAM KIPLAGAT
More by this Author

Summary

• Justice Benard Eboso said Bush Air Safaris, which operates a fleet of 12 aircraft in Hangar 16 at the airport, will remain at the contested premises for 60 days when the Rent Restriction Tribunal will resume its sittings.
• The case will be heard in February 2021 when the Tribunal resumes.
• The judge further directed the OCS Wilson Airport Police Station to ensure Bush Air Safaris is not evicted from the premises by Enrica Forno and Kenya Airports Authority (KAA).

The Environment and Land court has suspended the planned eviction of an aircraft operator from Wilson Airport over a rent dispute.

Justice Benard Eboso said Bush Air Safaris, which operates a fleet of 12 aircraft in Hangar 16 at the airport, will remain at the contested premises for 60 days when the Rent Restriction Tribunal will resume its sittings.

The case will be heard in February 2021 when the Tribunal resumes.

The judge further directed the OCS Wilson Airport Police Station to ensure Bush Air Safaris is not evicted from the premises by Enrica Forno and Kenya Airports Authority (KAA).

The company through its director John Ndiritu moved to court seeking a temporary injunction after he was given a seven-day notice to vacate the premises. He also sought to bar any interference with his business, pending the determination of the case.

Mr Ndiritu said he has been operating from Hangar 16 since 2012, after allegedly entering into an agreement to purchase several aircrafts from Ms Enrica, from part of her fleets.

Under the exclusive arrangement, he said he moved in and refurbished the entire premises to suit his business needs.

But on August 27, Ms Enrica gave him seven days’ notice, through the KAA on claims on non-payment of rent amounting to Sh12.5 million. The figure, he said, is based on balances arising from aircraft sold to him by Ms Enrica and plans to evict him is contrary to the law.

He said attempts to reach out to her and settle the dispute amicably has been futile. He rushed to court arguing that the issue of rent is governed by the distress of Rent Act, which was not being applied in his case.

“It is only fair that the defendants be restrained from taking any adverse action that will affect the plaintiff’s tenancy and occupancy of the premises pending the hearing of the case,” he said.