Parkar Radio House Ltd v Kirima (Sued in His Capacity as an Administrator of the Estate of G.K. Kirima - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to punish landlords for contempt because conflicting tribunal orders over the same shop made disobedience impossible to prove.
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 Respondents are in contempt of orders issued in BPRT E428 of 2026 on 2nd April 2026
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents were in wilful and deliberate contempt of the BPRT orders of 2nd April 2026
No contempt established; the Applicant failed to demonstrate wilfulness and mala fides
The court found the locks belonged to the Applicant's subtenant Fariah Shakur, and that an earlier Protective Order in BPRT/E408/2026 dated 31st March 2026 already restrained the Applicant's director from interfering with Shakur's occupation. Given two competing orders over the same premises, the Respondents could not comply with one without risking breach of the other, creating ambiguity negating wilful disobedience. It was for the Applicant to seek review and to have disclosed the earlier orders.
Who bore the obligation to seek variation of the impugned orders
The Applicant, not the Respondents, should have sought review as it was aware of the earlier orders
The Applicant argued the Respondents should have moved to vary the orders they considered impracticable. The court held the Applicant, having obtained orders while aware of the earlier restraining orders against it, was not candid and bore the responsibility to seek review of its own orders.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Four elements of civil contempt must be proved: clear and unambiguous binding terms of the order, knowledge or proper notice, breach of the terms, and deliberate conduct
- A party who obtains orders while aware of existing restraining orders against it ought to have disclosed that to the tribunal; a party adversely affected by an order should seek its review rather than ignore it
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated the 9th April 2026 is unmerited and is disallowed
- 2.Each party to bear their 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, Nairobi
- BPRT/E428/2026
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement of orders of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal through contempt proceedings
Relief refused
#Finding of contempt and committal/punishment of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for willful disobedience of the BPRT orders of 2nd April 2026, including restoration of the Applicant to possession of Shop No. 1 and Room 42, Luthuli Premises
There were two competing BPRT orders over the same premises, one restraining the Applicant itself, and the locks belonged to the Applicant's subtenant; the Applicant failed to prove wilfulness and mala fides to the required standard
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
I find the Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated the 9th April, 2026 unmerited and will disallow it.
Each party to bear their own costs.
since there were two competing Orders with one issued against the Applicant, I find that there was no wilful disobedience of the impugned Orders from the BPRT as claimed.
In our view the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the parties inconsistently: the application is by an 'Applicant' but submissions are attributed to 'The Plaintifi', and the judgment does not name the respondents other than by reference to the estate of G.K Kirima and its 1st Respondent
Conflicting characterisations of the court's role: the matter is a contempt application in respect of BPRT orders, but the analysis refers to 'as ordered by the Court' when discussing the Tribunal's order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Parkar Radio House Ltd v Kirima (Sued in His Capacity as an Administrator of the Estate of G.K. Kirima - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). BPRT/E428/2026 (Notice of Motion dated 9th April 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4392/eng@2026-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.