Sikorei v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme 2006 Registered Trustees (Land Case E534 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2424 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to stop the eviction of a homebuyer who had repeatedly defaulted on payments, ruling the pension fund seller acted within its contract.
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 Plaintiff/Applicant has met the threshold to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No enforceable right apparently infringed was demonstrated; the Respondent acted within the terms of the agreements
The undisputed evidence showed the Applicant defaulted on the purchase price and licence fees, repeatedly sought and was granted indulgences, failed to honour his own revised timelines, and did not pay the further Kshs 40,000,000 he undertook to pay by 31st October 2025. The court found the Respondent's termination followed prolonged default and was not outside the agreements, so no prima facie case with probability of success was established.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No; the claim is a failed commercial transaction with quantifiable monetary amounts
The sums paid (Kshs 21,655,000) and improvements (Kshs 11,400,000) are quantifiable and compensable. The Applicant's occupation arose from a contractual licence and lease subject to express payment obligations, so any loss from termination or loss of possession is remediable by damages. It was neither alleged nor proved that the Respondent could not pay damages.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of the Respondent
The Applicant had remained in occupation while persistently defaulting; restraining the Respondent would compel it to accommodate a persistent defaulter. The Respondent is a pension fund with fiduciary obligations to its members, exposed to unrecovered licence fees, unpaid utilities, land rent and rates, and inability to dispose of the property.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella requirements for an interlocutory injunction must be satisfied sequentially
- At the interlocutory stage the court conducts no mini-trial but assesses whether the applicant has a bona fide arguable claim likely to succeed
- Quantifiable monetary claims are compensable in damages and do not establish irreparable harm
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 21st October, 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e)) and Civil Procedure Rules, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the Respondents from evicting the Applicants or interfering with quiet possession of town house No. 18C Bogani Park pending hearing of the application and the suit
No prima facie case; no irreparable harm; balance of convenience favours the Respondent
Costs of the application
Granted to the Respondent
Costs
The Motion is dismissed with costs (costs to the Defendant/Respondent).
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 end, the court finds the Motion dated 21st October, 2025, to be unmerited. The same is dismissed with costs.
the establishment of a prima facie case, proof of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience are distinct and logical hurdles, each of which must be satisfied before the court can grant interlocutory injunctive relief.
In the court's view, the Applicant has not demonstrated an enforceable right that has apparently been infringed so as to call for rebuttal by the Respondent.
Those are quantifiable monetary claims capable of ascertainment and compensation should the suit ultimately succeed.
The balance of convenience therefore tilts in favour of the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number of the underlying suit is not stated in the judgment; only the Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2025 is identified
The Applicant's pleading describes the agreement of 17th December 2019 as one 'for the sale and subscription' while the Respondent describes it as an 'agreement for lease and subscription of share'
Minor typographical/varied citation spellings in the judgment (e.g. 'Giella vS Cassman Brown', 'Giella Versus Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sikorei v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme 2006 Registered Trustees (Land Case E534 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2424 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 21st October, 2025 (suit over town house No. 18C Bogani Park, LR No. 2259/708). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2424/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.