Njoroge v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that a fixed-term tenant whose lease expired has no right to an injunction, even after repeated renewals.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case was established; the leases were fixed-term and created no equitable right to renewal and no basis for proprietary estoppel.
The court examined the three leases (2007, 2013, 2019), each for a term of 5 years 3 months. All were fixed-term leases ending on expiry of the term. None created an equitable right for the Plaintiff to remain for life or for the leases to always be renewed. The renovations were done with knowledge of the expiry date, and no promise to renew was shown, defeating the proprietary estoppel claim.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss absent an injunction
No irreparable harm was shown; the alleged loss of business income was not shown to be incapable of being run elsewhere and old age alone cannot displace proprietary rights.
The Plaintiff claimed loss of livelihood and medical income at 79 years of age. The court found he did not explain why his business could not relocate, had nearly three months to seek alternative premises, and that advanced age cannot be a basis to deny a party their proprietary rights. Loss was therefore not shown to be uncompensable by damages.
Whether the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff
It did not; the lease had expired and the Plaintiff had no right capable of protection by injunction.
Applying Kenleb Cons Ltd, the court held an applicant must show a legal or equitable right requiring protection. The lease expired on 30th June, 2024, was not renewed, and the Defendants gave almost three months' notice to vacate despite no such obligation in the tenancy agreement. Without such a right, no injunction could issue.
Whether review of the urgency certification was merited under Order 45 Rule 1
Not merited; the application was overtaken by events and relied on information already communicated on 13th March, 2024.
The order sought to be reviewed was the refusal to certify urgency; the injunction application had since been determined on merit. The eviction threat in the 26th June 2024 letter repeated what was in the 13th March 2024 letter. The prayer met none of the Order 45 Rule 1 grounds for review.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed-term leases end when the agreed term expires, and repeated renewals do not create a right of perpetual renewal absent a promise by the landlord.
- An applicant for an injunction must show a legal or equitable right requiring protection; a tenant whose fixed-term lease has expired has no such right.
Court orders
#- 1.The two applications dated 22nd June, 2024 and 1st July, 2024 lack merit and are hereby dismissed.
- 2.The costs of the two applications shall be in the cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; applications brought under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review) and for interlocutory injunction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8261/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.