Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR)

Kaur v Suri (Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 June 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
868 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to order demolition of a boundary building or hand over tenancy records because the land's subdivision was unfinished, titles were not yet issued, and the owner had already sold his share.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court dismissed a notice of motion dated 4th November 2025 in which the plaintiff sought, first, access to the suit properties Nairobi/Block 22/418 and Nairobi/Block 22/419 to demolish a building straddling their boundary, and secondly, an order compelling the defendant to furnish tenancy records (tenancy agreements, rent receipts and expense invoices) for 2023 to date, said to be needed to settle accounts arising from a judgment delivered on 7th June 2023 and for audit by the plaintiff's accountant. The application was supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff's counsel, Virinder Goswami, and a supplementary affidavit of a process server, Josephine Mbaila, who reported repairs and full occupation of the units. The defendant did not oppose the subdivision but resisted demolition, deposing that he had sold his portion (Plot B) to Jasraj Singh Matharu for Kshs. 250,000,000 under a stamped agreement dated 16th June 2025; that Matharu was in possession and collecting rent; and that the rental audit reports for 2023 and 2024 had already been availed. He also accused the plaintiff of delaying the subdivision. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. It held it could not pronounce itself on demolition because the subdivision was unfinished and titles were yet to issue, and ownership had changed hands; and on tenancy records it found they appeared to have been provided and that the defendant, no longer in occupation, could not produce them. The notice of motion was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to access to the suit land to demolish the boundary building

Holding

The prayer was refused because the subdivision was not complete, titles were yet to be issued, and ownership of the defendant's share had passed under a sale agreement

Reasoning

The court noted the suit properties were undergoing finalization of subdivision, meaning new titles had not issued, so it could not pronounce itself on demolition. Further, the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of his portion, showing ownership had changed hands, which the court took as a further bar to ordering demolition.

p. 2
02

Whether the defendant should provide tenancy records for the period 2023 to date

Holding

The prayer was refused because the records appeared to have already been availed and the defendant, having sold his portion, was not in occupation and could not produce them

Reasoning

The court observed that annexures to the defendant's replying affidavit suggested the information had been provided. It also accepted the defendant's position that having sold Part B of the suit property to Jasraj Singh Matharu, who was in possession and collecting rent, he could not produce records held by another party.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The notice of motion dated 4th November, 2025 is dismissed
    2. 2.Costs of the application to the defendant/respondent
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in a suit relating to land; not expressly cited in the judgment

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Kaur v Suri (Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3966/eng@2026-06-30

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