Doric Industries Limited v Aksharap Real Estate Limited (Environment and Land Case 686 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord's illegal eviction of its tenant cost it Kshs 3 million, but the tenant's much larger claims failed for lack of proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the distress and eviction
The distress of 19th–20th August 2015 was unlawful because it breached the unvacated order of Ougo J of 26th March 2014, and as regards go-down 17 it amounted to an eviction since the Defendant removed the goods and re-let the premises. As regards go-down 18, destroyed by fire, there was no eviction.
The consent order of 19th June 2012 and the conditional injunction of 26th March 2014 were still in force; the Defendant circumvented pending proceedings by obtaining distress orders in a lower court. The contempt ruling confirmed flagrant disobedience. Removal of goods plus the 24th August 2015 letter stating go-down 17 was re-let effectively excluded the Plaintifi from possession, whereas go-down 18's destruction by fire was not attributable to the Defendant.
Proof of the Plaintifi's heads of damages
Only general damages of Kshs 3,000,000 were awarded for the unlawful distress and eviction from go-down 17; all quantified special damages claims failed for want of strict proof or remoteness; aggravated damages refused.
Special damages require strict proof; the Plaintifi had no inventory, asset register, receipts or audited accounts, quotations were post-facto and ignored depreciation, tax returns showed losses before the distress, and PW2 conducted no audit. Loan and supplier-debt claims were too remote. The Defendant's conduct, though unlawful, was preceded by notices and payment demands, negating malice or oppression.
The Defendant's counterclaim for mesne profits, repairs, auctioneer charges and aggravated damages
Mesne profits awarded only as Kshs 3,836,000 (Kshs 2,192,000 for godown 17 for 16 months and Kshs 1,644,000 for godown 18 for 12 months) at the old lease rates of Kshs 137,000 per godown per month, with 24% interest from 19th August 2015; repairs, auctioneer charges and aggravated damages dismissed.
Mesne profits depend on wrongful occupation; the Plaintifi last paid rent in March 2014 but remained until August 2015 (godown 17) and May 2015 (godown 18). Rent was payable at the expired lease rates, not the letter of offer. The Defendant's own letters showed the premises were vacated in 2015, defeating claims up to 2019. Repair costs were not proved and auctioneer charges flowed from the Defendant's own unlawful distress.
Legal principles established
#- Acceptance of rent after expiry of a lease may give rise to a periodic tenancy unless a contrary intention is demonstrated.
- A landlord's right of distress is not absolute and must be exercised within the law and in compliance with subsisting court orders.
- Distress for rent cannot lawfully be used as a substitute for repossession of premises without a court order for possession.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
- Loss of trade debts and bank loans consequent on a landlord's breach are too remote to be recoverable.
- A party cannot recover expenses incurred in the course of its own unlawful conduct.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintifi is granted general damages as against the Defendant for the illegal distress, and unlawful eviction from go-down no 17 on L.R 209/12402 to the tune of Kshs 3,000,000.
- 2.The Defendant shall pay interest on the above sum at court rates from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.
- 3.The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant mesne profits of Kshs 3,836,000.
- 4.The Plaintifi to pay to the Defendant interest rate on the above amount at the rate of 24% per annum from 19th August, 2015 until payment in full.
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court in respect of the suit premises (land dispute); no specific constitutional provision invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Doric Industries Limited v Aksharap Real Estate Limited (Environment and Land Case 686 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). HCCC (ELC) Suit — Amended Plaint dated 21st March 2016, Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1427/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.