Osentu Ventures Company Limited v Kakui (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4603 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan lessee in rent arrears lost his bid to block dealings on the leased land, but the court still protected his occupation pending trial.
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 threshold for grant of a temporary injunction has been met
- 2.Whether an inhibition order can issue under section 68 of the Land Registration Act
- 3.What reliefs ought to issue
- 4.Who bears the cost of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
No prima facie case established because the Applicant sought an equitable remedy while in arrears of annual lease rent and showed no good faith
The rights claimed stemmed from a lease agreement recognizable under Order 40 Rule 2. However, the Applicant only proved the initial payment of Kshs. 900,000 and did not respond to the allegation of unpaid annual rent for 2024. Citing Mrao Limited v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd, a party in breach who fails to show utmost good faith cannot obtain an injunction, so the first Giella principle failed.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
The claim was quantified at Kshs. 30,335,000 plus other damages, showing damages were an adequate remedy
The Plaint quantified losses (Kshs. 30,335,000 for crops and investments, Kshs. 9,100,500 contractual penalties, plus general, aggravated and exemplary damages). Following Nguruman Ltd v Nielsen, an injury is irreparable only where monetary compensation cannot be adequate; by quantifying its loss the Applicant conceded damages sufficed.
Whether an inhibition order should issue under section 68 of the Land Registration Act
No inhibition as prayed, because it would cover the entire title while the Applicant held a lease over only a portion, and would be punitive and prejudicial to the Respondent
The official search showed the suit parcel as approximately 157.66 Ha while the Applicant leased only a 150-acre portion. An inhibition against the whole property would exceed the Applicant's interest and prejudice the registered proprietor. However, the court preserved the position by ordering maintenance of the status quo of the lease pending determination of the suit.
What reliefs ought to issue and who bears the costs
Status quo of the lease maintained and both parties to perform their lease obligations; costs to the Respondent
Although the application failed, the court acknowledged the contractual relationship and the Applicant's investment on the leased portion, and invoked Practice Direction 28(k) (Gazette Notice 5178/2014) to preserve the suit property by maintaining the status quo, with mutual performance of lease obligations pending determination, and awarded costs to the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party approaches the court for an equitable remedy such as an injunction while in breach (arrears of rent) and without showing utmost good faith, the party is not entitled to the injunction
- Where no prima facie case is established, the court need not inquire into the remaining Giella principles of irreparable harm and balance of convenience
- An injury is irreparable only where monetary compensation can never be an adequate remedy
- A pleaded and quantified claim for damages indicates the injury can be compensated by damages
Court orders
#- 1.An order for the maintenance of the current status quo on the suit property so as to preserve and maintain the lease dated 30th December 2022
- 2.The Respondent not to interfere with the occupation and possession of the Applicant pursuant to the said lease till determination of the suit
- 3.Both parties to the lease to perform their obligations under the lease pending determination of the suit
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 68 of the Land Registration Act; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Practice Direction 28(k), Gazette Notice 5178/2014
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining dealings in the suit property
Applicant in arrears of rent failed to show utmost good faith and did not establish a prima facie case with probability of success
Order of inhibition over Transmara/Oloirien/21
Inhibition over the whole title would be punitive since the Applicant leases only a 150-acre portion; the order would occasion great prejudice to the Respondent
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
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 court considers it punitive to order an inhibition against the whole suit property as sought by the Applicant and therefore finds that the Applicant is not entitled to the said relief as prayed
hereby issues an order for the maintenance of the current status quo on the suit property, so as to preserve and maintain the lease dated 30th of December 2022 and for the Respondent not to interfere with the occupation and possession of the Applicant pursuant to the said lease, till determination of this suit
Both parties to the lease to perform their obligations under the lease pending determination of this suit.
Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents.
the Applicant has come to a court of equity but having failed to show utmost good faith, I cannot but hold that it was not entitled to the injunction it prayed for in its application
Issues in the judgment
#The parties are never named in full; the defendant is referred to only as 'Defendant/Respondent' and the plaintiff is identified solely through the deponent of the supporting affidavit
The court attributed to Mrao Limited a quotation on lack of good faith which reads as a holding by a single judge within that appeal; the precise source is not identifiable from the text
Numerous typographical errors in the text (e.g. 'plaintifi', 'Bufiallo', 'sufier', 'Appel')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osentu Ventures Company Limited v Kakui (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling (Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4603/eng@2026-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.