Bel Solutions Ltd v Isiolo General Farmers Co-operatives Society Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4529 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Isiolo dismissed a lease dispute because the company suing could not prove a valid, properly executed lease existed.
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 has established a reasonable cause of action/claim as against the 2nd defendant
- 2.Whether the plaintiff has proved its case (if at all) against the 1st defendant
- 3.What reliefs (if any) ought to be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 2nd defendant
No cause of action; no privity of contract between plaintiff and 2nd defendant, who is a stranger to the plaintiff's claim
The plaintiff's complaint arises from an alleged lease with the 1st defendant. The plaintiff never entered any transaction with the 2nd defendant, who took a separate lease from the 1st defendant. Breach of contract claims lie only against the party chargeable with breach and cannot be pursued against strangers. Absent a nexus, no liability can accrue against the 2nd defendant.
Whether the plaintiff proved a lawful lease with the 1st defendant on a balance of probabilities
Not proved. The lease exhibited does not name the plaintiff as lessee; no attesting witness was called; no authorization minutes; receipts and Mpesa payments were not to or from the 1st defendant
Exhibit P5 names various individuals as lessees and 'Isiolo Central Farmers' as lessor, not the plaintiff or the 1st defendant. The lease required attestation under section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, and proof under sections 70 and 71 of the Evidence Act required calling an attesting witness, which was not done. Payments went to Fatuma Dahir with no proof of authorization to receive rents on behalf of the 1st defendant.
Whether the reliefs sought should issue
None; injunction, mesne profits, rent recovery and damages all fail for want of proof, pleading or cause of action
The plaintiff failed to prove a lawful lease binding the 1st defendant and had no cause of action against the 2nd defendant, so permanent injunction could not issue. Mesne profits were unpleaded and unparticularized. The rent claim was directed at the wrong entity. General damages are not at large in contract and exemplary damages failed the threshold test.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff cannot rely on a contract to which it was not a party; privity of contract applies.
- Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof of the document; a document required by law to be attested cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness is called.
- A body corporate acts only on the basis of minutes and resolutions; authorization must be proved by evidence, not assumption.
- Mesne profits, being akin to special damages, must be specifically pleaded and proved.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Suit be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant
- 3.The Costs shall be agreed upon, and in default, be taxed in the conventional manner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute concerning Plot No. 560 Isiolo (lease of land)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction against the defendants
No cause of action against the 2nd defendant; no lawful lease proved against the 1st defendant
Mesne profits of Kes. 250,000
Not pleaded and particularized in the body of the plaint; mesne profits are akin to special damages
Recovery of Kes. 1,400,000 as rents paid
Receipts did not emanate from the 1st defendant but from Isiolo Central Farmers
General, exemplary and punitive damages
Damages in contract are ascertainable and not at large; exemplary damages threshold not met
Costs
Costs of the Suit awarded to the Defendant; costs to be agreed upon and in default taxed in the conventional manner
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.
Consequently, it is my finding and holding that the plaintiff has no cause of action as against the 2nd defendant. Absent a cause of action, the plaintiff herein is non-suited.
Pertinently, the Plaintiff cannot rely on [sic] a Contract, wherein same was not a party. For good measure, the Doctrine of privity of Contract does apply in respect of the subject matter.
If a document is required by law to be attested it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution
a Claim for Mesne Profits is akin to Special Damage[s] and hence the same must not only be pleaded, but particularized.
The Plaintiff's Suit be and is hereby Dismissed.
Costs of the Suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the plaintiff company is never clearly stated in the judgment; the 1st defendant is Isiolo Central Farmers Cooperative Society Limited while receipts and the lease refer to 'Isiolo Central Farmers', an entity the court treats as distinct
The judgment misstates the second issue as being against the 2nd defendant when it concerns proof of the case against the 1st defendant
Paragraph 107 states the plaintiff contended it entered a lawful lease with 'the Plaintiff', an apparent drafting error
The judgment records the plaintiff's mesne profits claim as Kes. 250,000 at paragraph 99 although the amended plaint's quoted reliefs do not quantify mesne profits
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bel Solutions Ltd v Isiolo General Farmers Co-operatives Society Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4529 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case (Isiolo) - Further amended Plaint dated 17.03.2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4529/eng@2026-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.