Amos Keireri Kanyugo v Kireithi Trust [2017] KEELC 3602 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court ruled that landlords cannot lock out tenants without notice, and tenants can get injunctions from the High Court even for rent-controlled tenancies.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court lacks jurisdiction over a controlled tenancy dispute at first instance
The objection was overruled; the court may grant injunction notwithstanding the BPRT mechanism
Relying on Moses N. Gitonga v George Gatheca Kinyanjui and Narshidas v Nyali Air Conditioning, the court held that Cap. 301's inbuilt dispute-resolution mechanism does not cover equitable reliefs such as injunctions. A controlled tenant facing illegal forcible eviction need not go to the BPRT; the superior court may entertain and grant injunctive relief. The objection was therefore overruled.
Whether a tenancy agreement existed between the parties
Yes, a tenancy existed based on the letters dated 21st October 2016 and the notice dated 28th October 2016
The court examined the documents annexed to the supporting affidavit, including the respondent's letter of 21st October 2016 acknowledging the applicant as its tenant and the notice dated 28th October 2016. From these it had no doubt a tenancy existed between the parties, despite the lease not being signed by the respondent.
Whether locking the premises without notice or before lapse of notice was lawful
The locking/termination was unjustified and unlawful
Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the defendant locked the suit property, and Section 57 of the Land Act requiring notice before termination of a periodic tenancy, the court found the defendant's conduct of locking/terminating the tenancy without notice, or before lapse of the notice issued, to be unjustified and unlawful.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for injunction even where the landlord-tenant dispute falls under Cap. 301, because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the defendant/respondent's notice of preliminary objection with costs to the plaintiff
- 2.An order compelling the respondent to immediately re-open the shop pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 2)
- 3.A temporary injunction restraining the respondent from closing, blocking or interfering with the plaintiff's tenancy pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 3)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court over landlord-tenant disputes; jurisdiction exercised notwithstanding Cap. 301 dispute-resolution mechanism
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Hotel Savana Limited v Omuga; Apondu & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7479 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7479 (KLR)30 Oct 2025applied
- Migiro v Paintmart and Allied Building Equipment (K) Limited[2023] KEELC 18523 (KLR)6 Jul 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos Keireri Kanyugo v Kireithi Trust [2017] KEELC 3602 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3602/eng@2017-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.