Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC 249 of 2019· [2026] KEELC 2836 (KLR)

Chudasama v Chudasama & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1394 of 2016 & 249 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2836 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 May 2026
OAO. A. Angote
3,256 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop a 'For Sale' sign and an independent valuation, ruling that personal belief cannot override a court-appointed valuer's report.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 2nd September 2025 by the Plaintiff, Jaswant Harilal Chudasama, in a long-running land dispute (ELC 249 of 2019) over Nairobi/Block 35/168 (LR 209/3383). Judgment delivered on 6th February 2024 directed that the property be valued by an independent valuer, sold, and the proceeds shared 2:1 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, with the Plaintiff having the first option to purchase. Kinyua Koech Limited was appointed valuer and estate agent and valued the property at Kshs. 154,000,000. The Applicant sought orders prohibiting the erection of a 'For Sale' sign on the property, where he resides, citing privacy, security and fraud concerns, and leave to conduct an independent valuation on the ground that the valuation was grossly exaggerated. The Respondent opposed, contending the application was a disguised attempt to review the orders appointing the valuer, that the court was functus officio on those questions, and that no evidence impugned the valuation. The court framed two issues: whether an independent valuation should be permitted, and whether the 'For Sale' sign should be prohibited. It held that a bare subjective belief as to value, unsupported by comparative evidence or allegations of incompetence, irrelevant considerations or stale data, cannot displace a court-appointed valuer's professional valuation. It further held that an estate agent appointed to sell must be allowed reasonable latitude to market the property, and the Applicant's fears of fraudsters and privacy intrusion were speculative and unsupported. The court dismissed the motion with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant should be permitted to conduct an independent valuation

Holding

Refused; no basis to impugn the court-appointed valuer's report of Kshs. 154,000,000

Reasoning

The Applicant merely asserted the valuation was a gross exaggeration. He did not demonstrate lack of qualifications, irrelevant considerations, ignored factors, or stale data, nor exhibit any comparative valuation. His position rested solely on personal belief, which is insufficient against a professional valuation by a court-appointed valuer. The court therefore declined to depart from the existing valuation.

p. 6
02

Whether a 'For Sale' sign on the suit property should be prohibited

Holding

Refused; marketing by signage is a normal part of the estate agent's mandate and the Applicant's fears were speculative

Reasoning

Having appointed Kinyua Koech Limited to sell the property, the court held it would be contradictory to restrain ordinary marketing methods. The Applicant failed to show real or specific prejudice; fears of fraudsters and privacy breaches were speculative and unsupported by evidence, and the correspondence showed the signage would be non-intrusive. The Applicant himself benefits from the sale as holder of two-thirds and first option to purchase.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A party's subjective belief as to the value of property, without more, cannot displace a professional valuation by a court-appointed valuer
  • A court that appoints an estate agent to sell property must allow that agent reasonable latitude to market the property using ordinary methods

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd September 2025 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chudasama v Chudasama & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1394 of 2016 & 249 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 249 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2836/eng@2026-05-14

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