Haile v Bright Future Private Limited (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E601 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3021 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court blocked an apartment buyer's eviction, holding the vendor breached the sale agreement first by never confirming completion documents were ready.
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 court has jurisdiction to entertain the application notwithstanding the arbitration clause, i.e. whether the doctrine of exhaustion required the applicant to first invoke arbitration
- 2.Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 3.Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
- 4.Where the balance of convenience lies
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction / doctrine of exhaustion
The court has jurisdiction; the dispute over the eviction notice and distress for rent is not captured within the arbitration clause, and clause 18.3 permits either party to seek injunctive orders from the court.
The respondent invoked the doctrine of exhaustion, contending the arbitration clause in the sale agreement had to be engaged first. The court perused clause 18.1, which covers disputes on interpretation, rights, obligations and implementation of the agreement's provisions, and found the complained-of conduct (issuance of an eviction notice and instruction of auctioneers to levy distress) was not captured by it. Clause 18.3 preserved the right to seek injunctive relief in court, making it the right forum.
Prima facie case
The applicant established a prima facie case; the respondent was the first to breach by failing to notify the applicant that completion documents were ready, which was a condition precedent to payment of the balance.
Clause 4.3 required the balance of USD 117,600 to be paid upon notification that completion documents were ready. Clause 5.3, relied on by the respondent, tied delivery of completion documents to payment of the full purchase price. The court held the obligation lay first with the respondent to notify readiness; no evidence of such communication was tendered. Courts are not invited to rewrite contracts for parties, and without evidence of the agreed terms the court could not impose terms retroactively. The tenancy question was left for the full hearing.
Irreparable harm
Eviction coupled with a risk of sale to third parties would extinguish the applicant's rights and cause harm that damages could not compensate.
Applying Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court reasoned that if evicted and the property sold to third parties, the applicant's rights would be extinguished and recovery of the property would be impossible, occasioning harm money could not cater for. The applicant also cited disruption to his family and children's schooling, though the decisive reasoning was the risk of irreversible disposal of the suit property.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction; there is a lower risk of injustice in granting than in refusing the orders.
Relying on Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited, that the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice, the judge was convinced that the lower risk lay in granting temporary injunctions while the suit awaited hearing on its merits, given the danger of the disputed suit property being dealt with in the manner apprehended by the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- A notice to levy distress for rent and evict, issued outside the scope of the arbitration clause, falls within the court's jurisdiction where the agreement (clause 18.3) preserves the right to seek injunctive relief from the court.
- Where the vendor's obligation to notify the purchaser that completion documents are ready precedes payment of the balance of the purchase price, absence of evidence of such notification means the vendor breached first.
- All three Giella v Cassman Brown conditions must be satisfied sequentially for an interlocutory injunction.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunctive orders restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, employees or anyone claiming under it from levying distress for rent, evicting, interfering with or disturbing the plaintiff's possession, occupation and ownership of Apartment No A16 on LR No 209/21878 Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the application (inter partes)
- 2.Similar temporary injunctive orders pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Kilimani to supervise and ensure compliance with the orders
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the agreement between the parties, incl. clause 18.3 preserving the court's power to grant injunctive relief notwithstanding the arbitration clause
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.
That pending hearing and determination of this suit, this honourable court do hereby issue temporary injunctive orders restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, employees, or anyone claiming under it from levying distress for rent, evicting, interfering with or in any manner whatsoever disturbing the plaintifi's possession, occupation, and ownership of Apartment No A16 erected on LR NO 209/21878 Nairobi
That the oficer commanding station (OCS) Kilimani do supervise and ensure compliance with the orders of this honourable court
In that regard I do hold that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application.
I hold that the respondent was the 1st to breach the terms of the agreement which then led to breach by the applicant of failing to pay within the completion period given
That pending hearing and determination of this application inter parties this honourable court do hereby issue temporary injunctive orders restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, employees, or anyone claiming under it from levying distress for rent, evicting, interfering with or in any manner whatsoever disturbing the plaintifi's possession, occupation, and ownership of Apartment No A16 erected on LR NO 209/21878 Nairobi
Costs will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' names are not given anywhere in the judgment; they are referred to only as 'plaintiff/applicant' and 'defendant/respondent'.
The case number, court name and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment text provided.
Inconsistency in the judgment: the operative order (a) restrains the defendant 'pending hearing and determination of this application' rather than of the suit, though order (b) covers the suit; also the court refers to clause '4.3' where the quoted clause is headed 4.2.
Chronological inconsistency in submissions filing dates: applicant's submissions filed 14th April 2026, respondent's on 10th March 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Haile v Bright Future Private Limited (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E601 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3021/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.