Kaur v Suri (Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling)

Kaur v Suri (Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013 CG Mbogo, J June 30, 2026 Between Mandeep Kaur Plaintiff and Avtar Singh Suri Defendant Ruling 1.Before this court for determination is the notice of motion dated 4th November, 2025 filed by the plaintiff seeking the following orders:- 1.Spent. 2.That the defendant do grant access to the suit land to facilitate demolition of the building situated on the boundary of Nairobi/Block 22/418 and Nairobi/Block22/4l9. 3.That the defendant do provide records relating to the tenancies (including tenancy agreements, rent receipts and invoices for expenses) for the period between 2023 to date. 4.That each party bears their own costs. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of Virinder Goswami, the learned counsel, for the plaintiff/applicant sworn on even date. The learned counsel annexed the proposed subdivisions scheme for the suit properties Nairobi/Block 22/418 and Nairobi/Block22/419 and deposed that it was necessary for the defendant to grant access to facilitate demolition of the building situated in the suit parcels. Further, that in an effort to settle all accounts arising from the judgment dated 7th June, 2023 he wrote to the defendant’s advocates requesting for all documents relating to the tenancies for the period 2023 to date to no avail. 3.The learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant deposed that it was necessary for the defendant to provide all the documents for audit by the plaintiff’s accountant. The plaintiff/applicant filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by Josephine Mbaila, a process server, on 11th March, 2026. She deposed that on 9th March, 2026 she visited the suit land where she found a contractor one, Harpal Singh Asbir, carrying out repairs on the property. 4.She deposed that the contractor informed her that he was instructed by the defendant to prepare one unit for a new tenant scheduled to move in the following month. She added that all the units were fully occupied. 5.The application was opposed vide the defendant/respondent replying affidavit sworn on 17th December, 2025. He was not opposed to the proposed subdivision and confirmed that there was no ownership dispute. The defendant/ respondent opposed the demolition of buildings on the property. He deposed that the issue of demolition was created by the plaintiff/applicant and was not a required condition for the subdivision to be concluded. 6.He deposed that demolition would prejudice his position and contravene the terms of his existing sale agreement for Plot B which he entered into with Mr. Jasraj Singh Matharu for Kshs.250,000,000. Further, that the said Mr. Matharu is currently in possession of the buildings and is responsible for collecting rent from tenants pending the completion of the subdivision. He added that since he was no longer in charge of rent collection, he was unable to provide the specific tenancy details, receipts and expense invoices requested by the plaintiff. 7.The defendant/respondent deposed that the rental income audit reports for 2023 and 2024 were already availed to the plaintiff/applicant and maintained that he complied with the judgment delivered on 7th June, 2023 with the subdivision exercise as the only pending matter. He deposed that the plaintiff/applicant delayed the subdivision process through deliberate inaction and lack of diligence noting that it is two years and five months since the judgment was delivered without any substantive action from her. 8.The defendant/respondent also filed a further affidavit sworn on 2nd March, 2026. He deposed that there was a stamped agreement for sale dated 16th June, 2025 between himself as the vendor and Jasraj Singh Matharu as the purchaser. 9.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The plaintiff/applicant filed written submissions dated 17th February, 2026. The defendant filed written submissions dated 2nd March, 2026. I have carefully considered the application, the replies thereof and the written submissions filed. The issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 10.Prayer one of the application is spent, and what is remaining is for the court to determine demolition and the issue of records relating to the tenancies. Notably is the fact that the suit properties are undergoing finalization of the subdivision process. In light of that, this court cannot pronounce itself on demolition as the titles to the suit properties are yet to be issued. Secondly, the defendant/ respondent entered into an agreement for sale for his portion of the property, and it is clear that ownership has changed hands. 11.On whether the tenancy records need to be availed to the plaintiff/applicant, from the record, this information seems to have been provided as shown through the annexures contained in the defendant/respondent’s replying affidavit. As noted earlier, the defendant/respondent sold part B of the suit property to one Jasraj Singh Matharu. On this issue, I agree with the defendant/respondent that he may not be in a position to produce the records since he is not in occupation. 12.From the above, I find no merit in the notice of motion dated 4th November, 2025. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE30/06/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistantMr. Kamau for the PlaintiffNo appearance for Mr. Muturi for the Defendant