Gourmet Café Limited & another v Paradise Safari Park Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E474 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1531 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to restore G-Café's JKIA airport stalls after eviction, finding the café hadn't proven its case or paid owed licence fees.
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 Plaintiffs have met the threshold for grant of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit premises
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs have established special circumstances warranting grant of temporary mandatory injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for a prohibitory injunction
No prima facie case; plaintiffs had been evicted and had not refuted alleged arrears of license fees
Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court noted the plaintiffs had already been evicted from the suit premises and failed to make payments due under the License Assignment Agreement, which the defendants alleged totalled KShs 7,142,378 and which the plaintiffs neither refuted nor proved payment of. Damages would be an adequate remedy.
Whether special circumstances justified a temporary mandatory injunction
No; mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage requires exceptional and special circumstances in the clearest of cases, which were absent
Relying on Nation Media Group & 2 others v John Harun Mwau, the court held a higher standard than for prohibitory injunctions applies. The plaintiffs were no longer in possession, and their occupation stemmed from a license between the 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant lacking a termination clause, which could not supersede the main five-year license commencing January 2015.
Legal principles established
#- Where an applicant fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not determine the other two Giella limbs
- An interlocutory mandatory injunction requires a higher standard - exceptional and special circumstances, in the clearest of cases
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 19th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; notice of motion in a pending suit (interlocutory application)
Relief refused
#Temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from leasing, licensing or occupying the G-Café premises at JKIA Terminal 1A and Terminal 2
Plaintiffs already evicted and failed to prove payments under the License Assignment Agreement, so no prima facie case established
Temporary mandatory injunction reinstating the 1st Plaintiff as licensee of the premises as at 12th September 2025
No exceptional or special circumstances shown; plaintiffs no longer in possession and the sub-license could not supersede the main five-year license
Costs of the application
Court ordered each party to bear their own costs
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
I find that since the Plaintiffs have already been evicted from the suit premises and failed to make certain payments as had been agreed upon in the License Assignment Agreement, they have failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant grant of interlocutory injunction as sought.
a temporary mandatory injunction can only be granted in exceptional and in the clearest of cases
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it.
Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The court describes the assignment documents inconsistently, referring to an Agreement for Assignment of License dated 24th January 2015 while the supporting affidavit refers to a letter seeking assignment dated 17th December 2014 and consent granted the same day
The judgment does not state the case number or the precise court; the cause is only described as a pending suit over JKIA catering premises
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gourmet Café Limited & another v Paradise Safari Park Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E474 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1531/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.