Car Wash Den Limited (Suing through one of the Directors Samuel Kimani Karanja) v Njoroge & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6610 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to protect a restaurant's tenancy because the business couldn't prove its lease was valid, hadn't paid rent, and had already lost the same dispute at the Rent Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether orders can issue against an interested party
An interested party is peripheral to a dispute and courts will not issue orders against it except where it actively participates as a de facto party or causes delay or abuse of process
The court held that interested parties stand on the periphery of litigation and orders should not ordinarily issue against them absent de facto participation or conduct causing delay or abuse of process, following Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu.
Whether the appellate court can determine facts before trial court judgment
The court cannot, on appeal, make final findings of fact while the matter remains interlocutory in the lower court
Because the impugned decision was interlocutory (striking out of a motion), the court declined to make final factual determinations, noting it was unaware of the current status of the lower court case. This constrained any assessment of alleged errors by the trial court.
Whether the conditions for an interim injunction were met
The Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success or substantial loss not compensable in damages
The Appellant did not prove up-to-date rent payment, could not identify its landlord given the sale to the interested party, did not explain the adverse BPRT outcome or its failure to appeal, and had been told as early as October 2023 to seek alternative premises. Damages could compensate any loss.
Disclosure of previous proceedings and parallel litigation
The court flagged that the dispute had been litigated before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal and questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction and the Appellant's disclosure obligations under Order 4 rule 1(1)(f)
The Respondents showed the dispute had gone to the BPRT, which dismissed the reference and vacated interim orders, with no appeal. The court questioned why the same dispute was before the magistrate and whether the Appellant disclosed prior proceedings as required, noting the Appellant filed no supplementary affidavit to counter the tribunal depositions.
Legal principles established
#- Courts will not ordinarily issue orders against interested parties except where such a party actively participates as a de facto party or causes delay or abuse of court process
- An appellate court cannot make a final determination of facts in a matter still at an interlocutory stage before the trial court
- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and substantial loss not compensable by damages
- Written submissions must be in tandem with the notice of motion under which relief is sought
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 9-5-2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Appellant (motion dismissed with costs)
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Murang'a
- Murang'a CMC ELC Case No. E074/25
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 42) - specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Car Wash Den Limited (Suing through one of the Directors Samuel Kimani Karanja) v Njoroge & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6610 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6610/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.