Nasinya Peak Hotel Limited v Tinega & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered hotel owners who locked out their tenant to undo the lockout within 30 days, confirming that self-help evictions are unlawful.
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 orders sought in the Plaintiff's application dated 4th August 2025 are warranted
Key legal issues
#Whether interlocutory injunctive orders were warranted
Yes - the Plaintiff established a prima facie case of possession and occupation, and the Defendants' locking and welding of the gate dispossessed it without lawful process
The court held the disputed shareholding transfer was not decisive; the real question was the tenancy or consensual occupation. Photographs of locked premises, a contested lease and mpesa rent payments showed occupation immediately before the complained acts. Self-help dispossession without court order met the stringent conditions for a mandatory injunction, with expeditious hearing directed under the overriding objective.
Whether validity of the lease and share transfer could be determined interlocutorily
No - these are matters for trial
The lease was seriously contested and its validity could only be determined after full hearing. The precise legal nature and duration of the tenancy likewise could not be finally determined at the interlocutory stage; only the alteration of the prevailing state of possession mattered for the application.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor must regain possession only through lawful process; self-help dispossession otherwise than through a court order justifies a mandatory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendants are restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff's occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The orders shall remain in place for a period of one year to allow completion of the case, failing which they shall lapse unless delay is occasioned by the Defendants, in which case the court may extend them
- 3.A mandatory injunction is issued directing the Defendants to undo the acts complained of within 30 days
- 4.The Plaintiff is to continue to remit rent; failing agreement on modalities, rent to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account
- 5.Costs shall abide outcome of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Application dated 21st October 2025 seeking to restrain Gatheru Gathemia & Co advocates from acting for the Plaintiff
Overtaken by events as a notice of change of advocates had been filed
Costs
Costs shall abide outcome of the 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.
In the end the application dated 4th August 2025 is allowed in the following terms;
A mandatory injunction is issued directing the Defendants to undo the acts complained of within 30 days from today
In a country governed by the Rule of Law, it is imperative that there is full compliance of the law even when a registered proprietor seeks to gain possession of his property.
The greater issue is whether there was a tenancy relationship or at least a consensual occupation of the suit property.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nasinya Peak Hotel Limited v Tinega & another", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E099 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6175/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.