Waithaka & 5 others v Mwangi & another; Kimani & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E080 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6038 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court dismissed tenants' urgent bid to block distress for rent because they defied a Tribunal order to sign a new tenancy offer and pay the new rent.
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 Plaintiffs have established the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants and the 1st Interested party from levying distress over the suit premises
- 2.Whether there is uncertainty on whom the Plaintiffs should pay rent and if so, whether the same should be deposited in court
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction against distress
Not established
The dispute concerns a tenancy agreement and rent account reconciliation. The Tribunal had directed the Plaintiffs to sign a Letter of Offer dated 29th May 2023 altering the tenancy terms, but they failed to show they signed it and did not provide rent account statements. Equity requires clean hands, and the Plaintiffs sought to pay the old rent contrary to the Tribunal's order, so the injunction was futile.
Deposit of rent in court
Refused
The Plaintiffs claimed uncertainty over the proper recipient of rent, but the court held they knew who their landlord was. Having failed to establish a prima facie case, the court did not proceed to the other Giella limbs and declined the deposit orders as futile.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must first establish a prima facie case; failure at that limb obviates consideration of the other Giella limbs
- A party who has not complied with orders of a tribunal/another forum and seeks to pay rent under superseded terms cannot demonstrate a prima facie case; injunctions are equitable and require clean hands
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the three Notice of Motion applications dated 29th February 2024, 14th June 2024 and 26th July 2024 as unmerited
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; related to BPRT Case No. E595 of 2023. The court had earlier dismissed a preliminary objection contesting its jurisdiction (Ruling of 30th October 2024).
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the Landlord and his agents from levying distress
No prima facie case established; Plaintiffs declined to sign the new Letter of Offer as directed by the Tribunal and sought to pay the old rent
Restraint of the 1st Interested Party from interfering with quiet enjoyment
Failed at the prima facie case limb of Giella v Cassman Brown
Deposit of rent in court
Uncertainty as to whom rent is payable was not a real issue since the Plaintiffs know their landlord
Extension of 5th March 2024 orders to Eric Karuri Waithaka, Peter N. Mwihu, John Wambugu and Samuel K. Kigumo
Application dismissed in its entirety
Costs
Costs will be in the cause.
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.
In the foregoing, I find the three Notice of Motion applications dated the 29th February, 2024, 14th June 2024 and 26th July 2024 unmerited and will dismiss them.
Costs will be in the cause.
injunctive remedies are equitable remedies and courts cannot alter the terms of a contract between parties. Further, a party seeking orders of injunction must come to court with clean hands.
I opine that the Plaintiffs should have adhered to the Order from the Tribunal, paid the agreed new rent to their landlord, before coming to court.
Issues in the judgment
#The court name is not stated in the judgment; station inferred from 'AT NAIROBI' and the reference to BPRT Case No. E595 of 2023 suggests a superior court with jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes, and the case number itself is not given in the judgment text.
Minor typographical errors in the original (OCR artifacts such as 'Plaintifi', 'efi', and 'prima face').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waithaka & 5 others v Mwangi & another; Kimani & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E080 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6038 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6038/eng@2025-09-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.