Doric Industries Limited v Aksharap Real Estate Limited (Environment and Land Case 686 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord's illegal eviction of its tenant cost it Kshs 3 million, but the tenant's much larger claims failed for lack of proof.
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 Defendant lawfully levied distress for rent and/or evicted the Plaintifi from the suit premises?
- 2.Whether the Plaintifi has proved its entitlement to the various heads of damages sought?
- 3.Whether the Defendant has proved its counterclaim?
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the distress and eviction
The distress of 19th–20th August 2015 was unlawful because it breached the unvacated order of Ougo J of 26th March 2014, and as regards go-down 17 it amounted to an eviction since the Defendant removed the goods and re-let the premises. As regards go-down 18, destroyed by fire, there was no eviction.
The consent order of 19th June 2012 and the conditional injunction of 26th March 2014 were still in force; the Defendant circumvented pending proceedings by obtaining distress orders in a lower court. The contempt ruling confirmed flagrant disobedience. Removal of goods plus the 24th August 2015 letter stating go-down 17 was re-let effectively excluded the Plaintifi from possession, whereas go-down 18's destruction by fire was not attributable to the Defendant.
Proof of the Plaintifi's heads of damages
Only general damages of Kshs 3,000,000 were awarded for the unlawful distress and eviction from go-down 17; all quantified special damages claims failed for want of strict proof or remoteness; aggravated damages refused.
Special damages require strict proof; the Plaintifi had no inventory, asset register, receipts or audited accounts, quotations were post-facto and ignored depreciation, tax returns showed losses before the distress, and PW2 conducted no audit. Loan and supplier-debt claims were too remote. The Defendant's conduct, though unlawful, was preceded by notices and payment demands, negating malice or oppression.
The Defendant's counterclaim for mesne profits, repairs, auctioneer charges and aggravated damages
Mesne profits awarded only as Kshs 3,836,000 (Kshs 2,192,000 for godown 17 for 16 months and Kshs 1,644,000 for godown 18 for 12 months) at the old lease rates of Kshs 137,000 per godown per month, with 24% interest from 19th August 2015; repairs, auctioneer charges and aggravated damages dismissed.
Mesne profits depend on wrongful occupation; the Plaintifi last paid rent in March 2014 but remained until August 2015 (godown 17) and May 2015 (godown 18). Rent was payable at the expired lease rates, not the letter of offer. The Defendant's own letters showed the premises were vacated in 2015, defeating claims up to 2019. Repair costs were not proved and auctioneer charges flowed from the Defendant's own unlawful distress.
Legal principles established
#- Acceptance of rent after expiry of a lease may give rise to a periodic tenancy unless a contrary intention is demonstrated.
- A landlord's right of distress is not absolute and must be exercised within the law and in compliance with subsisting court orders.
- Distress for rent cannot lawfully be used as a substitute for repossession of premises without a court order for possession.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
- Loss of trade debts and bank loans consequent on a landlord's breach are too remote to be recoverable.
- A party cannot recover expenses incurred in the course of its own unlawful conduct.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintifi is granted general damages as against the Defendant for the illegal distress, and unlawful eviction from go-down no 17 on L.R 209/12402 to the tune of Kshs 3,000,000.
- 2.The Defendant shall pay interest on the above sum at court rates from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.
- 3.The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant mesne profits of Kshs 3,836,000.
- 4.The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant interest rate on the above amount at the rate of 24% per annum from 19th August, 2015 until payment in full.
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court in respect of the suit premises (land dispute); no specific constitutional provision invoked
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining distress/eviction
Counsel for the Plaintifi conceded the plea is moot, having been overtaken by events.
Kshs 106,554,875.30 being value of seized goods, machinery and apparatus
Special damages not strictly proved; no inventory, asset register, receipts, warranties or contemporaneous records produced; quotations procured after the act and subject to depreciation.
Kshs 134,441,012.50 annual loss of profits and revenue
Claim speculative; tax returns showed declining profitability and a 2014 loss; no audited accounts; PW2's evidence lacked independent foundation; no comparative post-eviction financials.
Kshs 2,004,910 monthly loan repayments and Kshs 34,516,951.82 supplier debts
Loss too remote under Hadley v Baxendale / Wagon Mound principles; suppliers and lenders not called to testify; no documentary proof of indebtedness.
Punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages
Defendant's conduct was not malicious, high-handed or oppressive; it had issued notices and acted under a mistaken belief the injunctive order had lapsed.
Defendant's repair costs of Kshs 12,396,270.00
Not strictly proved; no demonstration that repairs were necessitated by damage caused by the Plaintifi rather than the fire or the Defendant's own distress.
Defendant's auctioneer's charges of Kshs 30,500.00
Arose from the unlawful distress; a party cannot recover expenses of its own unlawful conduct.
Defendant's claim for aggravated damages
No legal or factual basis laid.
Defendant's mesne profits up to March 2019 at the letter-of-offer rates
Plaintifi vacated in 2015; once the Defendant resumed possession/re-let, no wrongful occupation could be claimed thereafter; rent payable only at the lapsed lease rates.
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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 circumstances, the court finds that the distress carried out on 19th and 20th August 2015, in so far as it related to go-down no. 17, amounted to the eviction of the Plaintifi.
Indeed, while a landlord is entitled to levy distress where rent remains unpaid, that remedy is not absolute. It must be exercised strictly within the confines of the law and in compliance with any subsisting court orders.
Distress for rent, by itself, does not mean eviction, and it cannot lawfully be used as a substitute for repossessing premises without a court order.
This claim is plainly one for special damages, and the law is settled that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved.
The causal connection between the distress complained of and the Plaintifi’s inability to meet those obligations is too remote, and such losses cannot, in law, be shifted to the Defendant as recoverable damages.
The Plaintifi is hereby granted general damages as against the Defendant for the illegal distress, and unlawful eviction from go-down no 17 on L.R 209/12402 to the tune of Kshs 3,000,000.
The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant mesne profits of Kshs 3,836,000.
The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant interest rate on the above amount at the rate of 24% per annum from 19th August, 2015 until payment in full.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates in the pleading record — the lease is variously stated as expiring 31st March 2013 and 31st May 2013, and the decree amount in the Defendant's pleading of Kshs 2,192,000,000 appears to be a typographical exaggeration of Kshs 2,192,000.
The judgment refers to an offer dated 3rd June 2013 in one passage and 3rd June 2012 in the counterclaim, and records the letter of 25th April 2014 in one place and 28th April 2014 in another.
PW1's evidence on insurance proceeds is internally inconsistent with the Defendant's submission — the judgment records PW1 stating the Plaintifi received Kshs 20 million from insurance while the Defendant's submissions refer to Kshs 10,000,000 insurance proceeds for the burnt godown.
The judgment records the Plaintifi's counsel submissions as filed on 20th December 2025 and the Defendant's on 20th January 2026, with further Plaintifi submissions dated 10th February 2026, yet the suit's Amended Plaint is dated 2016 — the sequence is internally consistent but the year 2025/2026 submissions dates sit unusually against a 2016 pleading, suggesting possible typographical error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Doric Industries Limited v Aksharap Real Estate Limited (Environment and Land Case 686 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). HCCC (ELC) Suit — Amended Plaint dated 21st March 2016, Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1427/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.