Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text provided

Excelligent Solutions Limited v Family Health Options Kenya (Environment & Land Case E420 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4752 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 June 2025
COChristine Ochieng
4,835 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court blocked a tenant's renovations and refused to protect them from their landlord because the tenant owed millions in unpaid rent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment resolves two competing interlocutory applications in a landlord-tenant dispute over premises on LR No. 209/10193 (Family Health Plaza, Mai Mahiu Road, Nairobi). The Plaintiff, which leased space for a 20-year term under a Letter of Offer dated 29th November 2023 and paid over Ksh. 45 million, sought an injunction restraining the Defendant landlord from interfering with its business, renovations and quiet possession. The Defendant sought an order stopping the Plaintiff's ongoing renovations, which it alleged compromised the building's structural integrity and lacked valid approvals, contrary to Clause 13 of the Letter of Offer. The Defendant disputed the validity of a lease signed only by its Treasurer, asserted substantial rent arrears of about Ksh. 28.5 million plus interest, and challenged the County Government renovation permits, which were subsequently revoked on 7th April 2025. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and the decision in Samuel Kipkorir Ngeno on tenants in arrears, the court held the Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case since injunctive relief is equitable and the Plaintiff was in rent arrears, while the Defendant had not sought eviction. Relying on Nguruman, the court declined to assess the other two injunction limbs. The court found the renovations were compromising the premises and granted the Defendant's application. The Plaintiff's application was dismissed, the Defendant's allowed, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Plaintiff has made a case for grant of an interlocutory injunction pending outcome of the suit
  2. 2.Whether the Plaintiff should be compelled to halt the renovations it is undertaking on the suit premises

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction

Holding

No - the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case given its rent arrears and the equitable nature of injunctive relief

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found a lease arrangement via the Letter of Offer existed but the Plaintiff was in rent arrears, the exact amount unclear. Citing Samuel Kipkorir Ngeno, a tenant in arrears lacks clean hands. The Defendant confirmed it had no problem with the Plaintiff's quiet possession and did not seek eviction, so no threat to possession existed. Following Nguruman, the other two Giella limbs were not considered.

p. 8
02

Whether the renovations on the suit premises should be halted

Holding

Yes - the Defendant's application to stop the renovations was merited as the renovations were compromising the premises

Reasoning

The Defendant only sought that the Plaintiff stop renovations alleged to be undertaken without valid approvals; the court found the renovations were compromising the suit premises and ordered them stopped. The County Government had also revoked the building plans by letter dated 7th April 2025 according to the Defendant's material.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not consider the other two Giella limbs for injunctions
  • A tenant in arrears of rent does not deserve the court's equitable discretion to grant an injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2024 (as amended 19th May 2025) is disallowed/dismissed
  2. 2.The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 8th November 2024 is allowed - the Plaintiff to stop the ongoing renovations on the suit premises
  3. 3.Costs will be in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction (interlocutory applications in a pending suit); no specific constitutional or statutory basis stated

Relief refused

#

Interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's business, renovations and quiet possession

Injunctive relief is equitable; the Plaintiff is in rent arrears and has not established a prima facie case; the Defendant has not sought to evict the Plaintiff

p. 8

Costs

Costs will be in the cause.

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 Plaintifi’s Notice of Motion application dated the 15th October, 2024 unmerited and will disallow it. I however find the Defendant’s Notice of Motion application dated the 8th November, 2024 merited and will allow it.
p. 9Disposition
Costs will be in the cause.
p. 9Costs
I find that the Plaintifi has not established a prima facie case to warrant the orders of interlocutory injunction as sought.
p. 8Prima facie case / injunction
A tenant who is in huge arrears of rent is underserving of the court's discretion. The court cannot be the refuge of a tenant who fails to meet his principal obligation of paying rent as and when it becomes due.
p. 8Equity and tenants in arrears

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The Plaintiff's proper name is not printed in the judgment extract; the only 'Zellora Limited' mentioned is described as a structural audit firm, creating ambiguity over the plaintiff's identity

minor

Typographical error in the Defendant's affidavit - letter date stated as 29th April, 2004 in context of 2024 events

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Excelligent Solutions Limited v Family Health Options Kenya (Environment & Land Case E420 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4752/eng@2025-06-24

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