Nadiano Car Hire Co Ltd v Carlton Investment Ltd & another (Environment and Planning Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4559 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court reinstated a tenant's contempt case over a virtual hearing no-show, but refused interim injunctions because the premises and goods were already gone.
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 application dated 12th December 2025 for reinstatement of the application dismissed for want of prosecution should be allowed
- 2.Whether the notice of motion dated 11th September 2025 is merited, including whether the interim injunction prayers remain tenable
- 3.Whether the auctioneers and 1st Respondent should be summoned and punished for contempt of court
- 4.Whether the Applicant is entitled to damages at this interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether dismissal of the contempt application for non-attendance should be set aside
Allowed. Counsel's failure to log into the virtual court was not shown to be deliberate; judicial notice was taken of connectivity challenges and the application was filed timeously
The court noted counsel did not swear an affidavit proving attempts to log in, and cited Langat on the obligation to inform the court of network failures. However, taking judicial notice that virtual connectivity challenges are common and on a benefit of doubt, and because the application was filed timeously, the court allowed reinstatement in the interest of justice.
Whether the interim injunction prayers in the 11th September 2025 application remained tenable
Dismissed as overtaken by events - the goods had been sold and the premises renovated and leased to a new tenant
The court held that before assessing the Giella v Cassman Brown elements it had to determine whether the orders sought were still tenable. On the Applicant's own further affidavit, the 1st Respondent had completed renovations and let the property to a new tenant, and the goods had been sold to a third party. The injunction prayers therefore failed without consideration of the three elements.
Whether damages of Kshs. 45,000,000 could be awarded at the interlocutory stage
Refused; damages are a matter for the full hearing
The Applicant sought compensatory orders of Kshs. 45,000,000 for damaged gym equipment, loss of time, customers and trauma following the alleged unlawful eviction. The court held that damages can only be determined upon the full hearing of the suit and declined to make definitive findings at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- The court's discretion to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution must be exercised judiciously, and a timeously filed application with a possibly non-deliberate default may be allowed in the interest of justice
- Interlocutory injunction prayers that have been overtaken by events are not tenable and the court need not interrogate the Giella conditions
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 12th December 2025 is allowed and the application dated 11th November 2025 is reinstated for hearing and determination
- 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 11th September 2025 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 3.Costs of both applications shall abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate/supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal; inherent powers under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 12 Rule 7, Order 40 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from interfering with the suit property and the 2nd Respondent from dealing with the attached goods
The prayers were overtaken by events: the goods had been sold to a third party and the property had been renovated and let to a new tenant
Compensation/damages of Kshs. 45,000,000 for the alleged unlawful eviction
Damages can only be determined upon full hearing of the suit, not at interlocutory stage
Immediate summons to the auctioneer and 1st Respondent to answer contempt
Contempt issues will be dealt with in the reinstated contempt application
Costs
Costs of both applications shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
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.
The Notice of Motion application dated 12th December 2025 is hereby allowed and the application dated 11th November 2025 is reinstated for hearing and determination.
The Notice of Motion application dated 11th September 2025 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit
Costs of both applications shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
On a benefit of doubt, I am inclined to hold that the non-attendance may not have been deliberate. In the interest of justice and considering that the application herein has been filed timeously, I am inclined to allow the same.
It is therefore not in dispute that the prayer for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the 1st Respondents from interfering with suit property has been overtaken by events
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment internally refers inconsistently to the reinstated application's date - the notice of motion is dated 12th December 2025 but the supporting affidavit and the final order both refer to an application dated 11th/12th November 2025
Typographical error in the analysis heading conflating the two application dates
Judgment states it relies on orders said to have been issued by this court on 11th September, the same date as the motion itself
The prayer for compensation in the motion names 'the claimant compensate the Respondent', apparently a drafting error reversing the party roles
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nadiano Car Hire Co Ltd v Carlton Investment Ltd & another (Environment and Planning Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4559/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.