Namo Hardware Ltd v Cherangani Investment Co Ltd; Amar Hardware & Electricals (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E036 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4469 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord who accepted rent for two years was ruled a tenant's landlord and forced to pay damages for illegally locking the premises without a court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an existing tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant on 4/7/2021
- 2.If the defendant trespassed into the suit premises on 4/7/2021 and continued such acts of trespass till 7/8/2021
- 3.If the defendant was justified in locking up the suit premises and preventing the plaintiff access thereof
- 4.If the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 5.If the defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim
- 6.What is the order as to costs
Key legal issues
#Existence of a tenancy relationship between plaintiff and defendant
A periodic tenancy existed between the plaintiff and the defendant by conduct, the defendant having accepted rent cheques drawn by the plaintiff for over two years without objection, and was estopped from denying the tenancy
The court found that the defendant received rent from the plaintiff by cheques honoured through its bank account, knew of the signboard displaying the plaintiff as the operator, and did not question the capacity in which the plaintiff occupied the premises before expiry of the interested party's lease. Acceptance of rent, including cheques received on the eve of and after expiry of the lease, was an implied admission of the plaintiff's capacity. Estoppel barred the defendant from denying the obvious facts.
Whether the defendant's locking of the premises was justified
The defendant's self-help re-entry without notice or court order was unlawful; it trespassed on premises in the plaintiff's possession and was liable in damages
The lease required three months' notice by registered post under Clause 6(1), which was never issued before expiry. The defendant locked the premises on 4/7/2021 and only wrote on 7/7/2021. Sections 73-77 of the Land Act prescribe notice and court process for forfeiture and unlawful eviction. A landlord must obtain court orders; courts frown on the use of the law of the jungle and remedy such action by damages.
The defendant's counterclaim
The counterclaim failed as the defendant could not prove rent arrears and contradicted itself by seeking mesne profits from a party it denied was its tenant
The defendant pleaded the plaintiff was never its tenant yet counterclaimed for rent and mesne profits from it. Bank statements showed payments were up to date by 4/7/2021 and continued thereafter. The defendant produced no documentary proof of arrears as of the date of locking. The claim was therefore without legal basis.
Legal principles established
#- Whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists depends on the intention of the parties ascertained from their conduct and circumstances of occupation
- Acceptance of rent by a lessor from a party in possession for two months after lease termination deems a monthly periodic lease to have come into force
- A landlord must obtain court orders for vacant possession rather than resorting to self-help; trespass is actionable per se
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers (b) and (bi) of the amended plaint allowed, being damages for trespass, loss of business and anticipated profit
- 2.Prayer (a) (mandatory and permanent injunction) not granted as the plaintiff has not regularized the lease terms with the defendant
- 3.Parties granted 3 months to negotiate lease terms during which the plaintiff to continue paying monthly rent of Kshs. 126,730/= every 5th day of the month
- 4.The defendant's counterclaim dated 4/6/2024 dismissed with costs
- 5.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over tenancy, trespass and land disputes
Relief refused
#Prayer (a) - mandatory and permanent injunction restraining interference with possession
The plaintiff had not regularized the terms and conditions of the lease with the defendant; parties were given 3 months to negotiate
Costs
Counterclaim dismissed with costs; costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
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 upshot is I find the plaintifi entitled to the reliefs sought in the amended plaint dated 10/5/2025. Prayers (b) and (bi) are allowed.
The counterclaim dated 4/6/2024 is dismissed with costs. Costs of the suit to the plaintifi.
Trespass is the entry into and commission of unlawful acts on private land in possession of another, without lawful authority.
Courts do not rewrite contracts but enforce them, unless the contracts sufier defects of law under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and Section 28 of the Land Act.
Parties are granted 3 months to negotiate the same during which the plaintifi shall continue paying the rent per month of Kshs. 126,730/= every 5th day of the month.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff pleaded monthly rent of Kshs. 126,730 while the counterclaim seeks mesne profits of Kshs. 126,731 per month
Judgment refers to the amended plaint as dated 10/5/2025 in the disposition, whereas the plaint is dated 10/5/2024 elsewhere
Judgment inconsistently refers to the prior suit as ELC No. 95 of 2016 and later as Kitale ELC No. 92 of 2016
Evidence is inconsistent on the plaintiff's incorporation date (13/5/2019 per defence, 30/5/2019 per PW1) and the interested party's sole directorship (PW1 said his father was director; DW2 said PW1 was sole director)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Namo Hardware Ltd v Cherangani Investment Co Ltd; Amar Hardware & Electricals (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E036 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of Kitale (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4469/eng@2025-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.