Africagest Limited v Jumbo Management Limited (Environment and Land Case E040 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Malindi restored a hotel tenant's main entrance, ruling that blocked access risks reputational harm money can't fix.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether pending the hearing and determination of the main suit an order ought to be issued restraining the defendant/respondent from further interfering with the plaintiff/applicant's quiet possession and enjoyment of the demised premises Twiga Beach Resort located on Land Reference Number Chembe/Kibabamshe/1936
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction
The applicant established a prima facie case; the impediments to dignified access to the resort were not adequately explained by the respondent, and the permissible extent of interference under the lease is a triable issue.
The court found the parties contracted willingly for the lease of the resort with the main entrance through plot 1935. The alternative gate provided is narrow, unpaved, at the rear perimeter wall, unsuitable for tour buses and emergency vehicles, and lacks security features. The respondent failed to adequately explain these impediments. The respondent's allegations of breach of lease terms could not be dismissed but were reserved for the hearing of the counterclaim.
Whether the applicant faces irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - potential reputational damage in the upmarket hospitality industry cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
The applicant showed existing bookings, scheduled international tour operator arrivals, hygiene concerns from inability to collect waste, and reputational risk. The court held that in an industry relying on strict hygiene standards and word-of-mouth referrals, concerns about reputational damage are not unfounded and damages would be inadequate.
Balance of convenience
The balance tilts in favour of granting the injunction because the defendant showed no prejudice if the main entrance remained under the plaintiff's control.
The defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice it would suffer if the main entrance remained open under the plaintiff's agents' control. Placing matters on the scales, the balance tilts toward the applicant, justifying the injunction pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for a temporary injunction are that the applicant must establish a prima facie case and risk of irreparable loss not compensable by damages (Giella v Cassman Brown)
Court orders
#- 1.Application granted in terms of prayers nos (v) and (vi) of the Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2026
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.Parties to file and serve their witness statements and lists and trial bundles duly indexed and paginated
- 4.Matter listed for mention on 30th September 2026 for issuance of a hearing date
- 5.Parties enjoined to meet and examine what is truly essential for their respective purposes on Plot Nos 1935, 1936 and 1937 with a view to amicable co-existence during the lease period
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over landlord-tenant/lease disputes concerning land (pending injunction application in main suit)
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 applicant must establish a prima facie case and that he runs the risk of irreparable loss that can not be compensable by way of damages if the orders sought are not granted. See the case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown 1973 EA 358.
The court thus opines that the plaintifi has established that it has a prima facie case.
This court this finds that the application dated has merit and grants it in terms of prayers nos (v) and (vi). The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The court grants the application 'in terms of prayers nos (v) and (vi)' but the Notice of Motion as reproduced contains only prayers (i) to (iv), and the substantive injunction is prayer (i); there is a mismatch between the prayers listed and the prayers granted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Africagest Limited v Jumbo Management Limited (Environment and Land Case E040 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2026 (ELC Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3493/eng@2026-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.