Alaska Village Ltd v Gitonga & another (Sued as the Administrators of the Estate of Dorcas Nyawira Gitonga) (Environment and Land Appeal E058 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4556 (KLR)

The court examined Section 2 of Cap 301's definition of a controlled tenancy and the correspondence: the 7th October 2025 letter of non-renewal, the 4th December 2025 letter asking the Appellants to vacate and not pay rent, and the 15th December 2025 demand for vacant possession. The Respondents refunded rents paid despite instructions not to pay and filed suit on 19th December 2025, showing no intention to renew. With no agreement between the parties, the definition under Section 2 was not met.

Jurisdiction flows from the existence of a controlled tenancy conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Business Premises and Rent Tribunal under Cap 301. Having found no controlled tenancy, and noting that the tribunal had set aside the orders the Appellants obtained there, the statutory bar on the magistrate's court fell away. The court applied the Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' exposition of jurisdiction.

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court held that illegal occupation gives the Appellants no rights to protect; indeed they infringe the Respondents' proprietary rights. Damages could compensate them as the business can relocate. On balance of convenience, relying on Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort, the lower risk of injustice lies in refusing the injunction since the Respondents cannot use their premises while the Appellants remain.

The court exercised its discretion judiciously, noting expeditious disposal is a right of every party. Relying on Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei, stay of proceedings is an exceptional remedy with potential to infringe the right to a fair and prompt hearing, and the bar is high. The jurisdictional ground of appeal had already been determined against the Appellant, leaving no basis for a stay.