Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 534 (KLR)

Nandlal and Company Limited v Genco Limited (Environment and Land Case 161 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 534 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2026
2,065 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi landlord lost a multi-million shilling rent claim because it waited about seven years after the tenant left before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, registered owner of land title No. 20911880 on which Parkside Towers stands, sued by plaint filed on 16th May 2019 claiming it had leased the 4th floor of Tower B to the defendant under a letter of offer dated 17th August 2009 for six years. It alleged the defendant breached the lease by occupying without paying rent and sought a permanent injunction, an order for vacant possession, Ksh 28,524,986.90 and USD 1,098,377.85 as rent arrears as at 31/03/2018, plus costs and interest. The defendant denied liability, asserting it returned the keys in 2012, was locked out, and that the contract-based claim, arising from a 2009 breach, was time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act. At the hearing PW1 Vinay Sanghrajka testified for the plaintiff and DW1 Samuel Mwangi Mungai for the defendant. The court framed three issues: whether the suit was time barred, entitlement to the claimed arrears, and costs. Applying its own earlier ruling that party conduct after execution of the offer determined when the cause of action accrued, the court found the plaintiff had stopped invoicing, never distrained for rent, and did not sue when the defendant vacated in 2012, showing it treated the lease as terminated that year. The suit filed in May 2019 was therefore beyond the six-year period under section 4(1)(a) and the court lacked jurisdiction. The suit was struck out as statute barred with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is time barred under section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

The suit was time barred because the cause of action accrued in 2012 when the lease was, by the parties' conduct, terminated, and the suit filed on 16th May 2019 fell outside the six-year period

Reasoning

The court relied on its own earlier ruling of 5th March 2023 that conduct of the parties after execution of the offer would determine when the cause of action accrued. The plaintiff stopped invoicing the defendant, never distrained for rent, and did not sue when the defendant left the premises, showing it treated the lease as terminated in 2012. The suit filed on 16th May 2019 was therefore beyond six years and barred.

p. 4
02

Whether a contractual obligation arose from the unexecuted lease notwithstanding the letter of offer

Holding

Yes; the parties were bound by the letter of offer dated 17th August 2009 even though the formal lease agreement was not executed

Reasoning

The court found it was not disputed that the parties intended to be bound by the letter of offer, and the defendant had admitted a contractual obligation in its witness statement. Guided by the Court of Appeal in Chon Jeuk Suk Kim, an unregistered lease or agreement for lease is enforceable as a contract between the parties for the stated period.

p. 3
03

Whether the plaintiff proved the claimed rent arrears

Holding

Not determined, as the suit was struck out on limitation grounds before the claim could succeed

Reasoning

Although the plaintiff produced a statement of account and relied on section 107 of the Evidence Act and the National Bank of Kenya v Pipe Plastic Samkolit case on evidentiary burden, the court did not reach the merits of the arrears claim because it found the suit time barred and lacking jurisdiction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit founded on contract may not be brought after the end of six years from the date the cause of action accrued, and where a suit is time barred the court cannot grant the remedy or relief sought
  • An unregistered lease or agreement for lease, though not conferring a legal or equitable estate, is enforceable as a contract between the parties for the period stated in the document
  • The date a cause of action in contract accrues is determined by the conduct of the parties, including where a plaintiff by its conduct (ceasing to invoice, failing to distrain or sue) treated the lease as terminated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This suit against the defendant is struck out on account of being statute barred
  2. 2.The Defendant shall have costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a lease/rent arrears dispute (statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nandlal and Company Limited v Genco Limited (Environment and Land Case 161 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/534/eng@2026-02-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.