Macharia t/a Gusii Properties Club v Dakianga Distributors Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord who evicted a tenant while hiding a pending appeal was ordered to pay over Kshs. 10 million in damages and costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff could sue for damages for wrongful eviction
Yes - the prior judgment in HCCA No. 950 of 2005 established liability and directed assessment of damages; this court could not reopen that determination
The High Court in HCCA No. 950 of 2005 had allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal decision, held the eviction wrongful and actionable as a tort, and granted liberty to address quantum. The defendant never appealed that judgment. Reopening liability would amount to sitting on appeal over a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The preliminary point on forum (BPRT) had already been ruled on in September 2021.
Whether special damages were proved
Partially - loss of hotel business earnings (Kshs.7,322,817) and improvements (Kshs.960,000) allowed; rental income and goods/equipment claims failed for want of proof
Applying Hahn v Singh, special damages must be strictly proved. The financial report by a professional accountant supported the hotel earnings figure, and the court accepted the explanation that primary documents were lost in the eviction. The valuation report supported the improvements claim. However, no documents proved the sub-tenant rents or the Kshs.240,000 goods claim, so those limbs failed.
Whether aggravated damages were payable
Yes - Kshs.2,000,000 awarded because the defendant concealed the pending appeal to obtain eviction orders
DW1 admitted that in seeking eviction from the lower court the defendant did not disclose the pending appeal. The court found this dishonest and malicious, and the humiliating manner of eviction increased the injury, justifying aggravated damages per Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must not only be pleaded but also strictly proved
- A court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot reopen issues decided in a prior judgment not challenged on appeal
- In awarding damages at large, malice or arrogance on the part of the defendant increases the injury suffered by the plaintiff
Court orders
#- 1.Special damages in the sum of Kshs. 8,282,817
- 2.Aggravated damages in the sum of Kshs. 2,000,000
- 3.The plaintiff is awarded the costs of this suit
- 4.Interest on (a) and (b) at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court following transfer from the High Court (suit for damages for wrongful eviction from suit premises Kisii Municipality/Block 3/107)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Doric Industries Limited v Aksharap Real Estate Limited (Environment and Land Case 686 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)12 Mar 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Macharia t/a Gusii Properties Club v Dakianga Distributors Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 29 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16938/eng@2023-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.