Mwamburi t/a Kaddy Fashion and Supplies v Mbololo Ushirika Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2471 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed landlords can seize goods for unpaid rent without a court order, and rent tribunals cannot award damages for such seizures.
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 Tribunal erred in law and fact in holding that the Appellant was in rent arrears and that the distress for rent was lawful
- 2.Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Cap 301 to grant and assess the damages claimed by the Appellant
- 3.If the Tribunal had jurisdiction, whether the Appellant proved her claim for special and general damages to the required standard
- 4.What orders should the Court make on costs and otherwise
Key legal issues
#Whether the distress for rent was lawful
The distress was lawful; the Appellant was in arrears and the police assistance order did not limit the extra-judicial right of distress to named tenants
Section 3(1) of the Distress for Rent Act allows a landlord with rent in arrear to levy distress without a court order. The court order of 4th August 2021 merely directed police assistance under Rule 9 of the Auctioneers Rules and neither founded nor limited the distress. The Appellant failed to produce rent receipts for March 2017 to January 2020 despite the rent increase notice, so the evidential burden on her was not discharged.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award the damages claimed
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 12 of Cap 301 to award general or special damages for alleged wrongful distress
The Tribunal's powers are limited to matters of rent, controlled tenancies, termination and statutory compensation for goodwill or improvements upon termination. Damages for wrongful distress are tortious and must be pursued before a court of competent civil jurisdiction. An appellate court cannot confer jurisdiction on itself that the Tribunal did not possess.
Whether the special damages were strictly proved
Even assuming jurisdiction, the special damages claim would fail for want of strict proof
The inventory, sales book and loan documents were all prepared by the Appellant or derived from her own data, with no corroboration by invoices, receipts, supplier statements or independent valuation. The auditor conceded the accounts were undated and based solely on the Appellant's data. The Kshs. 3.5 million loan post-dated the distress and was not shown to be causally linked to it.
Legal principles established
#- The right to levy distress for rent under Section 3(1) of the Distress for Rent Act is extra-judicial and requires no court order; a police assistance order does not constitute the legal basis for the distress nor limit it to named tenants
- The Business Premises Rent Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 12 of Cap 301 does not extend to awarding general or special damages for alleged wrongful distress; such claims lie before a court of competent civil jurisdiction
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Reference No. E057 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal; appeal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)
Relief refused
#Compensation for alleged wrongful distress (special damages of Kshs. 9.4 million, general damages and loss of goodwill)
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Cap 301 to award damages for wrongful distress, and in any event the special damages were not strictly proved; the distress itself was lawful as the Appellant was in rent arrears
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
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.
the right to distress is extra-judicial and is founded on the existence of rent arrears.
Any claim for damages arising from an alleged unlawful distress lies before a court of competent civil jurisdiction and not the specialised Tribunal.
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
In conclusion, it is the finding of this Court that the Appeal is unmerited and the same is dismissed in its entirety. Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date contradiction in Respondent's written submissions: judgment states submissions dated 24th April 2026 in one passage and 24th April 2025 in another
The Appellant appears to be a business name used as the litigant's name; no personal name of the tenant is given in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwamburi t/a Kaddy Fashion and Supplies v Mbololo Ushirika Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2471 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from Business Premises Rent Tribunal Reference No. E057 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2471/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.