Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Tribunal’s finding of a controlled tenancy, and affirmed damages and enforcement orders under Cap. 301.
Njiiri v Irungu (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5281 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The dispute concerned whether the premises were subject to a controlled tenancy and the validity of termination notices, matters reserved to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under Cap. 301. Because pending tribunal proceedings existed and the Environment and Land Court only had appellate jurisdiction under Section 15 of Cap. 301, the court lacked original jurisdiction. The suit and application also amounted to an abuse of process, so the plaint was struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
Maina t/a Mondos Electronic v Royal Palms Mustard Ltd & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E334 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5152 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to prove contempt to the required standard because the evidence was insufficient to conclusively show breach of the tribunal orders, and the alleged termination of the tenancy was not supported by the mandatory statutory notice procedure; the dispute over the tenancy remained unresolved and belonged before the tribunal.
Source excerpt
Abud v Hassan & 8 others (Environment and Land Appeal E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5229 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove an enforceable tenancy or controlled tenancy against the 1st/9th respondent, his alleged sub-lease was unregistered and unsupported by evidence of recognition by the registered owner, and the 9th respondent held a valid registered lease that the appellant did not impeach on the statutory grounds of fraud, illegality, misrepresentation or procedural impropriety. The lower court therefore correctly upheld the 9th respondent's title and dismissed the appellant's claims.
Source excerpt
Kenya African Othaya Bus Union v Nyagari & another (Civil Appeal E014 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12527 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The appeal challenged a BPRT decision arising from a tenancy dispute governed by Cap 301, and section 15 of that Act expressly directs appeals to the Environment and Land Court. Because the appeal was filed in the High Court, that court lacked jurisdiction and the preliminary objection succeeded.
Source excerpt
Oloo v African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa (AIPCA) Makande & another (Civil Case E199 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 479 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The tenancy was a controlled tenancy because it was an unwritten shop tenancy. Although a landlord need not obtain tribunal authorization where a tenant voluntarily surrenders possession, the Defendants failed to prove voluntary surrender with clear or corroborated evidence. Since they admitted taking possession without issuing the statutory notice or obtaining tribunal authority, the Court found the Plaintiff was unlawfully dispossessed. The Court held it had jurisdiction to determine the claim for damages arising from that unlawful eviction and awarded general damages of Kshs. 150,000.
Source excerpt
Westfield Shopping Mall Ltd v Hemed & 2 others (Civil Appeal E023 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12756 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that disputes arising from a controlled tenancy and a Business Premises Rent Tribunal decision fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court; therefore the High Court lacked jurisdiction to determine both the appeal and the stay application, and the file had to be transmitted to the Environment and Land Court.
Source excerpt
Mt Kenya Wholesalers Ltd v Mwangi (Civil Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 356 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff’s suit was premature because, on the court’s finding, the tenancy was not controlled and the Plaintiff had an available non-judicial remedy of distress for rent that should have been explored before filing suit; the court therefore struck out the suit without determining the rent arrears claim.
Source excerpt
Ndungi (Suing as the representative of the Estate of Samuel Gichuru) v Kimondo & 31 others (Environment and Land Case E457 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4811 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that the application sought final substantive reliefs, especially eviction and effectively mandatory injunctive orders, at an interlocutory stage while the respondents asserted lawful tenancy and rent payment. Because the competing claims to occupation and possession raised disputed issues that required a full hearing, the Applicant had not established a prima facie case, irreparable harm, or entitlement to immediate eviction or damages for trespass. The status quo had to remain pending trial.
Source excerpt
Kariuki v Denkon Enterprises Ltd (Environment and Land Appeal E226 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4522 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that it was the Appellant's landlord, that the tenancy had been determined by the competent Tribunal, that the Appellant remained in occupation without lawful justification, and that the trial court's awards for rent arrears and trespass damages were supported by the evidence and disclosed no error of principle warranting appellate interference.
Source excerpt
Explore more
