Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2025] KEELC 1008 (KLR)

Mt Kenya Sun v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (Nairobi Branch) (Land Case E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1008 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 March 2025
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
1,947 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop a lease termination because the tenant's own letters admitted unpaid rent, so tenants must fix arrears before asking for court protection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff company, through its director Isaac J.M Githinji, sued the defendant, the registered owner of title NSG/LR NO. 2787/482 (Nanyuki Show Ground), under a lease agreement dated 14/6/2022 for a term of five years and three months ending 31/10/2027, with monthly rent of Kshs 350,000. The plaintiff claimed it had complied with the lease but received a 30-day termination notice dated 3/12/2024 and a demand of Kshs 3,450,000 in alleged arrears. By a notice of motion dated 16/12/2024, it sought suspension of the termination notice, an injunction against interference with the property, distress, eviction or termination of tenancy, alternatively maintenance of status quo and freezing of disputed payments. The suit sought a permanent injunction, a declaration of no rental arrears, and alternatively a set-off of Kshs 30,000,000 said to have been spent on repairs and improvements, and cited over 100 employees at risk of job loss. The defendant, through Amos Kirui, branch manager, admitted the lease but showed the plaintiff fell into arrears early in the tenancy, acknowledged the debt in letters and an acknowledgment of debt of 14/8/2024, and failed to pay despite extensions. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as expounded in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, Judge Lucy N. Mbugua found the plaintiff's own correspondence contradicted its claim of compliance, that no prima facie case was established, that the arbitration clause had not been invoked, and that the lease's termination clause 23(b) was engaged. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendant on 5 March 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for temporary injunction

Holding

No - the plaintiff's own correspondence acknowledged rent arrears and committed to pay them, contradicting its claim of full compliance with the lease

Reasoning

The court compared the plaintiff's pleaded claim of faithful rent payment with documents it produced, including a letter of 29.11.2024 committing to reduce outstanding balances, and the defendant's letters and statements of account showing arrears from March 2023 and an acknowledgment of debt dated 14.8.2024. The plaintiff filed no further affidavit to counter these documents. The court therefore found no prima facie case warranting injunctive orders.

02

Whether the court should suspend the 30-day termination notice

Holding

No - the lease contained a termination clause 23(b) in the event of rent default, and clause 25 required disputes to go to arbitration which the plaintiff had not invoked

Reasoning

The court noted the lease's express termination clause for default in rent payment and that the plaintiff had not invoked the arbitration clause. The claim of Kshs 30,000,000 in repair expenditure was not an issue made subject of contest so as to vary the lease terms. The court therefore declined to suspend the notice.

p. 4
03

Whether irreparable injury and balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff

Holding

Not reached on the merits - having failed on prima facie case, the plaintiff could not justify restraining the defendant's proprietary rights

Reasoning

Applying Nguruman, if a prima facie case is not established, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration. The court added that there was no justification to deny the defendant the right to its property while the plaintiff was not paying rent. The plaintiff's claims of Kshs 10,000,000 and Kshs 20,000,000 investments and over 100 employees did not displace the defendant's registered proprietorship.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt
  • The three Giella conditions are sequential hurdles; a prima facie case alone is insufficient and no leap-frogging to injunction is permitted
  • It is a serious thing to restrain a registered proprietor of property over what is undeniably his unless there are justifiable grounds

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 16.12.2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendant

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited V Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Ors
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society
    [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86
  • Sbs Dunhil Group (East Africa) Limited v Shah & others & 4 others
    (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E112 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3752 (KLR) (24 April 2024) (Ruling)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a lease dispute concerning land title NSG/LR NO. 2787/482

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mt Kenya Sun v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (Nairobi Branch) (Land Case E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1008 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1008/eng@2025-03-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.