Nandlal and Company Limited v Genco Limited (Environment and Land Case 161 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 534 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi landlord lost a multi-million shilling rent claim because it waited about seven years after the tenant left before going to court.
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 suit is time barred
- 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Ksh 28,524,986.90 and USD 1,098,377.85 being the amount of rental arrears as at 31/03/2018
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is time barred under section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act
The suit was time barred because the cause of action accrued in 2012 when the lease was, by the parties' conduct, terminated, and the suit filed on 16th May 2019 fell outside the six-year period
The court relied on its own earlier ruling of 5th March 2023 that conduct of the parties after execution of the offer would determine when the cause of action accrued. The plaintiff stopped invoicing the defendant, never distrained for rent, and did not sue when the defendant left the premises, showing it treated the lease as terminated in 2012. The suit filed on 16th May 2019 was therefore beyond six years and barred.
Whether a contractual obligation arose from the unexecuted lease notwithstanding the letter of offer
Yes; the parties were bound by the letter of offer dated 17th August 2009 even though the formal lease agreement was not executed
The court found it was not disputed that the parties intended to be bound by the letter of offer, and the defendant had admitted a contractual obligation in its witness statement. Guided by the Court of Appeal in Chon Jeuk Suk Kim, an unregistered lease or agreement for lease is enforceable as a contract between the parties for the stated period.
Whether the plaintiff proved the claimed rent arrears
Not determined, as the suit was struck out on limitation grounds before the claim could succeed
Although the plaintiff produced a statement of account and relied on section 107 of the Evidence Act and the National Bank of Kenya v Pipe Plastic Samkolit case on evidentiary burden, the court did not reach the merits of the arrears claim because it found the suit time barred and lacking jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A suit founded on contract may not be brought after the end of six years from the date the cause of action accrued, and where a suit is time barred the court cannot grant the remedy or relief sought
- An unregistered lease or agreement for lease, though not conferring a legal or equitable estate, is enforceable as a contract between the parties for the period stated in the document
- The date a cause of action in contract accrues is determined by the conduct of the parties, including where a plaintiff by its conduct (ceasing to invoice, failing to distrain or sue) treated the lease as terminated
Court orders
#- 1.This suit against the defendant is struck out on account of being statute barred
- 2.The Defendant shall have costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a lease/rent arrears dispute (statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from occupation and possession of the suit premises
The suit was struck out as time barred
Order directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession
The suit was struck out as time barred
Ksh 28,524,986.90 and USD 1,098,377.85 being rental arrears as at 31/03/2018
The court found the cause of action accrued in 2012 and the suit, filed on 16th May 2019, was beyond the six-year limitation period
Costs
The Defendant shall have 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.
a. This suit against the defendant is stuck out on account of being statue barred b. The Defendantt shall have costs
I find that this suit is time barred by virtue of the provisions of section 4(1) (a)of the Limitation of Actions Act and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same.
The law on limitation of actions is intended to protect defendants against unreasonable delay in the bringing of suits against them.
The conduct of the plaintifi implied that he considered the lease terminated before the oficial expiry that is the 6 years as in the ofier letter and therefore making the cause of action arise at the time it considered the lease terminated in this case the year the defendant vacated that is 2012.
The statute expects the intending plaintifi to exercise reasonable diligence and to take reasonable steps in his own interest.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the plaintiff filed the suit on 16th May '209' but elsewhere states the proceedings were filed on 16th May 2019; the earlier date appears to be a typographical error
The final orders state the suit is 'stuck out' (apparently 'struck out') and use 'Defendantt', apparent typographical errors in the disposition
The ruling date is inconsistently given: the witness referred to a ruling delivered on '532010' while the court relied on a 'court ruling dated 5th March 2023'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nandlal and Company Limited v Genco Limited (Environment and Land Case 161 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/534/eng@2026-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.