Kithome & another v Haile & another (Land Case E194 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out both a tenant's and a landlord's claims because each broke the lease, and neither proved their case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the forfeiture of the tenancy was lawful
The forfeiture was of no value because the 1st defendant failed to serve the seven days' notice required under clause 7(b) of the tenancy agreement before re-entry
Clause 7(b) of the tenancy agreement required the landlord, upon rent being unpaid for seven days, to serve a written notice specifying the non-payment and requiring remedy within seven days before re-entry. The court found no such notice was served, so the forfeiture could not stand. However, the plaintiffs were also in fundamental breach by failing to pay rent, and neither side proved entitlement to relief.
Whether either party proved its case to the required standard
Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants proved their respective claims on a balance of probabilities, warranting dismissal of both the suit and the counterclaim
The court held that the plaintiffs contributed to the breach by not paying rent, and the 1st defendant breached the agreement by failing to follow the contractual notice procedure and by denying access to the ground floor. With fault on both sides and no persuasive proof by either party, no relief was available to either side on a balance of probabilities.
Legal principles established
#- A landlord seeking to forfeit a tenancy for non-payment of rent must comply with the contractual notice procedure before re-entry; forfeiture without the required notice is of no value
- A tenant cannot justify withholding rent on the basis of alleged breach by the landlord; both parties are to blame where each is in breach
Court orders
#- 1.The amended plaint dated 4th June, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The counterclaim dated 2nd July, 2024 is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over use and occupation of land)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kithome & another v Haile & another (Land Case E194 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4617/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.