Bloomfield Apartments Limited v Rubbycut Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 343 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 3388 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan tenant who lost property in an eviction got nothing in damages because it couldn't prove the eviction was illegal or document its losses.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the eviction of 21st June, 2010
The eviction was presumed lawful on the strength of the orders of 4th June, 2010; the Defendant failed to prove that stay orders were served or that demolition continued in defiance of them.
The Defendant contended the orders of 4th June 2010 were fraudulent but adduced no proof of irregularity. Although it obtained stay orders on 21st June 2010, DW1's assertion of service was unsupported by any evidence. Photographs showed only destroyed property without context of time or cause, so the alleged night demolition was not established.
Whether the uncontroverted counterclaim entitled the Defendant to damages
No. The burden of proving the counterclaim remained on the Defendant notwithstanding the Plaintiff's failure to testify.
Relying on Section 107(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act and Charterhouse Bank Ltd v Frank N. Kamau, the court held that a plaintiff's (here defendant-in-counterclaim's) non-appearance does not lighten the claimant's evidentiary burden. The Defendant's proof of special damages was also weakened by absence of receipts, which it said were carted away, and unverified gross earnings claims.
Proof of special damages
The claim for special damages failed with the dismissal of the counterclaim as the underlying illegality and quantified losses were not proved.
DW1 conceded there was no tenancy agreement produced, no proof of rent payments, no evidence of gross earnings of Kshs 800,000, and no valuation of destroyed items since receipts were carted away. The composite account deposits further undermined attribution of income to the restaurant alone.
Legal principles established
#- Uncontroverted evidence does not automatically discharge a party's burden of proof; the burden is not lessened by the opposing party's failure to testify.
- A party alleging that an eviction contravened subsisting stay orders must prove service of those orders; without proof of service, continued eviction does not constitute an illegality.
- Court orders are presumed lawful and duly authorized unless irregularity is demonstrated.
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's counterclaim dated 30th August, 2011 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) over disputes relating to land L.R No 2/316
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bloomfield Apartments Limited v Rubbycut Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 343 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 3388 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not specified in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3388/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.