[2024] KEELC 633 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEELC 633 (KLR)
Parties: Plaintiff: SBS Dunhill Group (East Africa) Ltd; Defendant: Ajeetkumar C Shah; Defendant: Pankaj Chhaganlal Shah; Defendant: Kamalkumar Chhaganlal Shah; Intended Defendant: Pravichandra Jamnadas Kakad t/a PJ Kakad & Co Advocates; Intended Defendant: Land Registrar, Nairobi
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Environment & Land Case E112 of 2023
Procedural Posture: Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Preservatory Orders Pending ADR
Outcome: Application for preservatory orders declined.
Judges: LN Mbugua
Legal Topics: Preservatory Orders, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Eviction Proceedings
Source Language: en

Land and Property Civil Procedure Preservatory Orders Alternative Dispute Resolution Eviction Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

SBS Dunhill Group (East Africa) Ltd

Plaintiff

Ajeetkumar C Shah

Defendant

Pankaj Chhaganlal Shah

Defendant

Kamalkumar Chhaganlal Shah

Defendant

Pravichandra Jamnadas Kakad t/a PJ Kakad & Co Advocates

Intended Defendant

Land Registrar, Nairobi

Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Preservatory Orders Pending ADR

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preservatory orders pending the outcome of ADR or further directions of the court.
2 Whether the previous consent orders regarding payment of rent and other conditions have been complied with by the plaintiff.
3 Whether the progress of ADR justifies the continuation of interim orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the consent orders issued on 20.12.2023, specifically regarding the payment of rent and other conditions. The court also noted that the ADR process had broken down and was no longer being pursued, rendering the basis for the earlier preservatory orders otiose. In the absence of compliance with court orders and with no ongoing ADR, the court held that there was no justification to grant further preservatory orders. The application for such orders was therefore declined.

Court Disposition

Application for preservatory orders declined.

Orders

No preservatory orders are granted at this stage.
Matter to be mentioned on 14.2.2024 for further directions.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

29 paragraphs

SBS Dunhill Group (East Africa) Ltd v Shah & others & 2 others; Kakad t/a PJ Kakad & Co Advocates & another (Intended Defendant) (Environment & Land Case E112 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 633 (KLR) (7 February 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 633 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment & Land Case E112 of 2023

LN Mbugua, J

February 7, 2024

Between

Sbs Dunhill Group (East Africa) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Ajeetkumar C Shah & Others

1st Defendant

Pankaj Chhaganlal Shah

2nd Defendant

Kamalkumar Chhaganlal Shah

3rd Defendant

and

Pravichandra Jamnadas Kakad t/a PJ Kakad & Co Advocates

Intended Defendant

Land Registrar, Nairobi

Intended Defendant

Ruling

1. This matter was scheduled today for mention to confirm if ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) was fruitful. Counsels for the plaintiff desire to address the court, in open court of which the matter is scheduled for mention for that purpose on 14. 2.2024. The plaintiffs pray for preservatory orders in the intervening period. The respondent has opposed the grant of any such orders.

2. I have perused the record. I find that on 5. 12. 2023 the courtgave preservatory orders on the basis that parties were pursuing ADR. Thus plaintiff was not to be evicted.

3. Subsequently on 20. 12. 2023 the court gave orders by consent whereby plaintiff was directed to adhere to certain conditions including payment of rent on 31. 12. 2023 and 31. 1.2024.

4. The plaintiff did not comply with the set conditions. Their advocates have gone ahead to pray that the said orders given on 20. 12. 2023 be set aside. In essence there is no ADR and whatever progress had been made to that end has been rendered otiose.

5. I have no basis to grant any preservatory orders at this stage. I therefore decline to grant any such orders.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Omaiyo and Omari for PlaintiffMakori for DefendantCourt Assistant: Cherono

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.