Kantafu Housing Cooperative Society v Chatur t/a Chatur Radio Services (Environment and Land Appeal 99 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3027 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to allow new evidence on appeal because it contradicted a settlement the applicant had already accepted.
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 applicant has satisfied the requirements for leave to file additional evidence on appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for leave to file additional evidence on appeal
The application was dismissed because the licence agreement post-dated a consent agreement that had already settled the ownership of the mezzanine floor, and admitting it would prejudice the respondent.
The appeal challenged a BRPT decision of 6th December 2019 allocating ownership of the mezzanine floor to the respondents. A consent dated 17th March 2020, from which the licence agreement arose, already resolved the ownership issue: payment of arrears less the value of the mezzanine floor would pass the premises to the licensor. The applicant had settled the arrears on that basis, so it could not litigate the settled issue on appeal, and allowing the evidence would prejudice the respondent contrary to the interest of justice.
Legal principles established
#- In considering additional evidence on appeal, the court must weigh proportionality and prejudice, balancing the significance of the evidence against the swift conduct of litigation and any prejudice it may cause.
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2023 is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BRPT)
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, invoking Section 78(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to produce additional evidence (a licence agreement dated 14th August 2020) and to file it by way of affidavit as a supplementary record of appeal
The licence agreement flowed from a consent that had already settled the ownership issue of the mezzanine floor, and allowing it would prejudice the respondent and be contrary to the interest of justice.
Costs
Each party to 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.
That the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2023 is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Each party to bear its own costs.
The court will consider the proportionality and prejudice of allowing the additional evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of motion is described as dated 30th June 2023 in the introduction, but the final disposition refers to a 'Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2023'.
The ruling is dated 14th May 2026, which post-dates a replying affidavit sworn on 17th October 2024 despite the case seemingly filed in 2023; the 2026 date may be a typographical error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kantafu Housing Cooperative Society v Chatur t/a Chatur Radio Services (Environment and Land Appeal 99 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3027 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3027/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.