Baringo United Company Ltd v Muhia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4409 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord cannot evict a tenant to 'rebuild' without solid proof—current approvals, finances, and firm plans—of genuinely intending to demolish and reconstruct.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant proved intention to demolish and reconstruct under Section 7(1)(f) of Cap 301
The Tribunal did not err in finding that the Appellant failed to establish the intention
The approved building plans dated 21st July 2016 required construction within 24 months and were subject to renewal; the renewal document was not a development permission (Form DC8 was never issued). Termination notices were issued almost 3 years later. Structural details and a geotechnical report were never availed, and 15 conditions of the plans were not fully met. The minutes did not show adoption by members.
Whether the Tribunal misapplied the principle in Auto Engineering Ltd v Gonella
No misdirection; the burden of proof was correctly placed on the landlord
The Tribunal applied the correct principle that the onus is on the landlord to establish a firm and settled intention, and that the intention must be proved as a matter of fact. The Appellant's failure to avail structural details, geotechnical report and current development permission meant the intention was neither firm nor settled.
Whether the standard of proof was raised beyond a balance of probabilities
The Tribunal did not raise the standard of proof
The Tribunal rightly required evidence of intention on a balance of probabilities. Demanding approved plans, financial capacity, statutory approvals and adopted resolutions is not raising the standard beyond reasonable doubt but requiring the landlord to discharge its evidential burden under Section 107 of the Evidence Act.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof is on the landlord to establish a firm and settled intention to demolish or reconstruct as a matter of fact
- The landlord's intention must be realistic and backed by approved plans, financial capacity and statutory approvals
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Tribunal (BPRT), Nakuru
- Nakuru Business Premises Tribunal Case No E205 of 2023, Consolidated with Nakuru BPRT No. E217 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Business Premises Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap 301
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Baringo United Company Ltd v Muhia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4409 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nakuru Business Premises Tribunal Case No E205 of 2023 (Consolidated with Nakuru BPRT No. E217 of 2023), Appeal therefrom. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4409/eng@2026-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.