Rupas Gift Centre Limited & another v Government of the Republic of Uganda & another (Land Case E493 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3647 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that Uganda cannot hide behind diplomatic immunity when renting out its Nairobi building commercially.
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 Preliminary Objection meets the threshold of a proper preliminary objection
- 2.If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, whether the Preliminary Objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is barred by sovereign immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Sovereign immunity does not bar the suit; the dispute falls within the Article 31(1)(a) and (c) exceptions as it concerns commercial leasing of immovable property in Kenya
The dispute arose from notices requiring tenants to vacate Uganda House for renovations. The court found the dispute did not concern diplomatic or sovereign functions but occupation of immovable property in Kenya and rights from a landlord-tenant relationship. Leasing portions of Uganda House for rent is a commercial activity distinct from protected diplomatic functions, so the exceptions in Article 31(1)(a) and (c) apply and immunity does not bar the suit.
Whether the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute falls under Cap 301 and the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
The Court has jurisdiction; the tenancy is not a controlled tenancy since the proviso to Section 2 of Cap 301 excludes tenancies to which a Government is a party
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is tied to the existence of a controlled tenancy. The 1st Respondent, the Government of Uganda, is pleaded as landlord of Uganda House, and the proviso to Section 2 of Cap 301 expressly removes tenancies to which a Government is a party from the category of controlled tenancies. The Respondents could not rely on Cap 301 to oust the Court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection meets the threshold of a proper preliminary objection
It does; both grounds touch on jurisdiction, a pure point of law
Applying Mukisa Biscuit and Republic v Eldoret Water & Sanitation Company, the court held that both grounds of the objection touch on jurisdiction and competence of the suit, which are pure points of law properly raised by way of preliminary objection without ascertaining disputed facts.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must arise from the pleadings, raise a pure point of law and be capable of disposing of the suit
- Diplomatic immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention is not absolute and does not cover commercial activities relating to private immovable property in the receiving State
- Tenancies to which a Government is a party are excluded from the definition of controlled tenancies under the proviso to Section 2 of Cap 301
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 31st March 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
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.
Accordingly, the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 31st March 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.
Consequently, I find that the Respondents have not demonstrated that the present suit is barred by sovereign immunity. The dispute falls within the exceptions contemplated under Article 31(1)(a) and Article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.
Once the tenancy falls outside the definition of a controlled tenancy, the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under Sections 11 and 12 of Cap 301 cannot be invoked.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties are inconsistently referred to as Respondents/Objectors and Plaintiffs/Applicants; role labels in the judgment fluctuate
The judgment numbering begins with blank items 1 and 2 and the suit's own case number is not stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rupas Gift Centre Limited & another v Government of the Republic of Uganda & another (Land Case E493 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3647 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3647/eng@2026-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.