Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the extract (Kericho ELC suit)· [2026] KEELC 2048 (KLR)

Majani Hotels Group Limited v Tea Hotel Limited (Environment and Land Case E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2048 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 April 2026
LOL. A. Omollo
8,527 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~34 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court dismissed both sides' urgent applications in a hotel lease dispute, ruling that key questions — lease termination and vacant possession — must wait for full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo, J) determined two competing interlocutory applications arising from a hotel lease over L.R. No. Kericho Municipality Block 4/313 dated 1st August, 2023. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining termination of the twenty-year lease, an order that the Defendant render and reconcile accounts crediting renovation sums, and leave to deposit Kshs. 1,000,000 in court pending reconciliation. The Defendant, alleging over twenty-five months of unpaid rent totalling Kshs. 3,900,000, unauthorized subletting to Riccobello Company Limited, and breaches of the lease, sought a temporary and mandatory injunction for vacant possession of the Main Hotel and Swimming Pool Area. The Plaintiff challenged the authority of Musa Koech to swear the Defendant's affidavits, citing internal removal proceedings. The court framed three issues: the merit of each application and costs. It declined the Plaintiff's prayer (c) because the validity of the served termination notice is a matter for trial; declined prayer (f) because granting it would re-write clause 1 of the lease contrary to National Bank of Kenya v Pipeplastic Samkolit; and declined prayer (g) as derivative of (f). The Defendant's prayers (a) and (b) were refused because they would determine the Counterclaim at the interlocutory stage, contrary to the high threshold for mandatory injunctions per Kenya Breweries v Washington Okeyo. On locus, the court held that a director has ostensible authority to swear affidavits absent evidence of acting outside actual authority, citing Slokwei Tarita v Walekwa and Ochanda v EON Energy. Both applications were dismissed with costs to the Defendant, with all substantive issues left for the hearing of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to restrain termination of the lease

Holding

Refused; validity of the served termination notice is a trial issue

Reasoning

The Plaintiff admitted receiving a notice to terminate. The court held it could not at the interlocutory stage determine the validity of the termination, which falls squarely within the pleadings (declaration of validity and permanent injunction) and must await full hearing of the main suit.

p. 14
02

Whether the Defendant should render reconciled accounts crediting renovation sums

Holding

Refused; the claim would re-write the lease

Reasoning

Clause 1 of the lease required the tenant itself to quantify and cost the repairs in collaboration with the Estate Manager, with agreed costs credited to the rent account. Inviting the court to reverse that mechanism would amount to re-writing the contract contrary to the National Bank of Kenya v Pipeplastic principle.

p. 15
03

Whether the Defendant's application for vacant possession should be granted

Holding

Refused; it would determine the Counterclaim at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

Both the temporary and mandatory injunction prayers sought vacant possession of the hotel and swimming pool. Granting them would conclusively determine issues reserved for trial, and a mandatory injunction is only granted in clear or exceptional cases.

p. 16
04

Whether Musa Koech had authority to swear affidavits for the Defendant

Holding

Presumption of authority applies; a director has ostensible authority absent contrary evidence

Reasoning

Applying Slokwei Tarita Ltd v Walekwa and Ochanda v EON Energy, authority to defend a suit is an internal matter under the Articles of Association; a director is a known agent and evidence must be tendered to show he acted outside actual authority before a court can find the affidavit unauthorized.

p. 17

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot re-write a contract between the parties; parties are bound by its terms unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved
  • Mandatory injunctions on interlocutory application issue only in exceptional or clear cases
  • A director is an agent of a company and, absent evidence to the contrary, has ostensible authority to sign documents including affidavits on its behalf

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applications dated 21st August, 2025 and 9th October, 2025 are dismissed
  2. 2.The Defendant is awarded the costs of both applications
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Majani Hotels Group Limited v Tea Hotel Limited (Environment and Land Case E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2048 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract (Kericho ELC suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2048/eng@2026-04-16

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