Chudasama v Chudasama & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1394 of 2016 & 249 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2836 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop a 'For Sale' sign and an independent valuation, ruling that personal belief cannot override a court-appointed valuer's report.
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 Plaintiff/Applicant should be permitted to conduct an independent valuation of L.R Nairobi/Block 35/168?
- 2.Whether the 1st Defendant/Respondent, or anyone acting under him should be prohibited from placing a "For Sale" sign on L.R Nairobi/Block 35/168?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant should be permitted to conduct an independent valuation
Refused; no basis to impugn the court-appointed valuer's report of Kshs. 154,000,000
The Applicant merely asserted the valuation was a gross exaggeration. He did not demonstrate lack of qualifications, irrelevant considerations, ignored factors, or stale data, nor exhibit any comparative valuation. His position rested solely on personal belief, which is insufficient against a professional valuation by a court-appointed valuer. The court therefore declined to depart from the existing valuation.
Whether a 'For Sale' sign on the suit property should be prohibited
Refused; marketing by signage is a normal part of the estate agent's mandate and the Applicant's fears were speculative
Having appointed Kinyua Koech Limited to sell the property, the court held it would be contradictory to restrain ordinary marketing methods. The Applicant failed to show real or specific prejudice; fears of fraudsters and privacy breaches were speculative and unsupported by evidence, and the correspondence showed the signage would be non-intrusive. The Applicant himself benefits from the sale as holder of two-thirds and first option to purchase.
Legal principles established
#- A party's subjective belief as to the value of property, without more, cannot displace a professional valuation by a court-appointed valuer
- A court that appoints an estate agent to sell property must allow that agent reasonable latitude to market the property using ordinary methods
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd September 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Order prohibiting the 1st Defendant from placing a 'For Sale' sign on the suit property
The Applicant demonstrated no real or specific prejudice; the appointed estate agent must be allowed reasonable latitude to market the property
Order permitting the Applicant to conduct an independent valuation
No proper basis was laid to impugn the valuation of the court-appointed valuer; a subjective belief as to value is insufficient
Costs
Dismissed with costs (costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent)
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 court finds the Notice of Motion dated 2nd September, 2025 to be unmerited. The same is dismissed with costs.
such subjective belief, without more, is insuficient to displace or cast doubt upon a professional valuation undertaken by a courtappointed valuer
It would be contradictory for the court to appoint an estate agent to sell the property and thereafter restrain that agent from employing ordinary and reasonable methods of marketing the property
The fears expressed regarding fraudsters, strangers and breach of privacy remain speculative.
Issues in the judgment
#Dates in the record are internally inconsistent: submissions dated 18th March 2026 are described as responding to a replying affidavit of 20th November 2025, while the Respondent's submissions are dated 18th November 2025, before that affidavit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chudasama v Chudasama & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1394 of 2016 & 249 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 249 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2836/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.