Savoan Limited v Azalea Holdings Limited (Environment & Land Case E416 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 102 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A tenant with rent arrears lost her bid to protect Karen premises and equipment because money losses can be repaid.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant has proved the existence of a prima facie case with probability of success or otherwise
- 2.Whether the Applicant herein shall be disposed to suffer irreparable loss if the orders sought are not granted or otherwise
- 3.Whether the Applicant has established and demonstrated exceptional/peculiar circumstances to warrant the grant of an order of mandatory injunction
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with probability of success
The Applicant established a prima facie case; there were factual and legal issues worthy of investigation at a plenary hearing
The court found the parties executed heads of terms and a lease dated 21st March 2024, that the Applicant defaulted on rent, and that the Respondent re-entered. The rival averments on compliance with Section 75 of the Land Act and lease clauses raised issues of fact and law for trial, demonstrating a genuine and arguable case, which constitutes a prima facie case.
Irreparable loss
The Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable loss; losses were quantifiable and compensable in damages
Equipment, fixtures and fittings are capable of valuation; loss of business and goodwill is quantifiable; the Plaintiff had itself quantified monetary claims in the Plaint; and the Respondent, being the registered owner with rental income, has the financial capacity to pay damages. Loss already accrued and is remediable in damages.
Mandatory injunction threshold
No exceptional or special circumstances warranted a mandatory injunction
The Applicant conceded rent arrears of KES 7,446,251.26; the Respondent may have a lien or contractual rights under clauses 10.4, 10.5 and 18 of the lease; the lawfulness of re-entry is a matter for trial. Mandatory injunctions require a higher standard and exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case in a civil application is a genuine and arguable case showing an apparent infringement of a right calling for explanation or rebuttal
- Proof of a prima facie case alone does not entitle an applicant to a temporary injunction; irreparable loss must also be demonstrated
- An interlocutory mandatory injunction requires a higher standard and exceptional and special circumstances
- An issue worthy of investigation need not be one that will ultimately succeed to establish a prima facie case
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated the 11th October 2024 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant/Respondent
- 3.The Interim orders hitherto granted/issued be and are hereby discharged
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 76(1), 77 of the Land Act, 2012; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 13(1), (2), (7)(a)(i) and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with, alienating or disposing of the Applicant's properties in the suit premises
No irreparable loss established; loss quantifiable and compensable in damages
Order for unlimited access to the suit premises to remove equipment, fixtures and fittings (mandatory injunction)
No exceptional or special circumstances demonstrated; Applicant did not approach equity with clean hands
Costs
Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant/Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the factual matrix and the legal propositions that have been adverted to by the Applicant truly demonstrate a genuine and arguable case. Instructively, the existence of a genuine and arguable case constitutes a prima facie case.
From the foregoing analysis, I am afraid that the Applicant herein has failed to establish and/or substantiate the likelihood of substantial loss/ harm arising.
All in all, I am not persuaded that the Applicant has met or satisfied the requisite threshold to warrant the grant of an order of mandatory injunction. Sufice it to posit that such an order can only issue in exceptional and special circumstances and not otherwise.
i. The Application dated the 11th October 2024 be and is hereby dismissed. ii. Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant/Respondent iii. The Interim orders hitherto granted/issued, be and are hereby discharged.
Issues in the judgment
#The Defendant/Respondent is never named in the body of the judgment, and the judgment itself vacillates between describing the property as L.R No. 1159/466 and L.R No. 1159/456
The date of the Respondent's written submissions is stated inconsistently as 26th November 2024 and 26th December 2024
The date of the demand notice is stated inconsistently as 6th April 2024 and 6th August 2024 in different paragraphs
The rent arrears date is stated inconsistently as 30th July 2024 and 31st July 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Savoan Limited v Azalea Holdings Limited (Environment & Land Case E416 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/102/eng@2025-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.