Property firm and church battle over Kirima-linked land

The court also rejected the church’s attempt to strike out the company’s appeal, finding it had been filed within the legal timelines.

The judge ruled that the appeal was competent, noting it had been lodged “within the statutory 30-day period” after accounting for public holidays.

“The appeal was therefore lodged within the statutory 30-day period. There is thus a competent appeal for determination before this court,” the judge said.

The dispute centres on a three-year lease agreement between the church and the company signed on June 1, 2021. Under the agreement, the church occupied a portion of land known as Plot No. 5908/9-2 and established its place of worship.

Makiyi Properties claimed the church defaulted on rent and utility payments, prompting it to instruct auctioneers to recover arrears of more than Sh3.3 million.

The church moved to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in May 2024 to challenge the claims, but its case was dismissed for failure to comply with tribunal orders.

Auctioneers later obtained court orders to break in and attach church property to recover the alleged arrears.

Ownership twist

The dispute, however, took a new turn after a separate court ruling declared the land part of the estate of the late businessman Gerishon Kirima.

Makiyi Properties said it subsequently bought the land from the estate in December 2024, maintaining it remained entitled to recover rent accrued before the sale.

However, the church, through an affidavit sworn by Victor Mwangi, disputed the claim, alleging it had been misled into leasing land that did not belong to the firm.

It told the court it paid more than Sh2 million in rent and deposit, only to discover the property belonged to Kirima’s estate.

Mr Mwangi said he later entered into a sale agreement with the estate and paid more than Sh9.1 million to acquire the land, arguing the church is now the lawful owner.

“Demanding rent from the respondent equates to the respondent paying rent for its own property,” he stated.

He further accused the firm of unlawfully attaching church property despite being aware of the ownership dispute, forcing the church to incur storage and transport costs to recover its goods.

In its April 17, 2025 ruling, the rent tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction after the dispute evolved from a tenancy matter into a land ownership contest.

It ordered the release of the attached goods and directed the parties to seek resolution in the appropriate forum.

Makiyi Properties challenged that decision and sought orders to suspend its enforcement, arguing it risked substantial financial loss and possible contempt proceedings.

However, the court found no basis to grant a stay of execution, noting that the church had already recovered its goods from auctioneers, weakening the firm’s claim of potential loss.

“It is clear that the respondent has already collected the attached goods from the applicant’s auctioneers. Therefore, there is no significant loss likely to be suffered that could prejudice the appeal,” the court ruled.

The court emphasised that substantial loss is the “cornerstone” for granting stay orders and must be clearly demonstrated.

It further observed that execution of a lawful order, on its own, does not amount to substantial loss.

“The applicant must establish other factors… that will irreparably affect or negate the very essential core of the appeal,” the court said.

Finding that threshold had not been met, the court dismissed both the application for stay and the church’s preliminary objection.

The ruling leaves the substantive appeal pending, setting the stage for a hearing on the key issues of ownership and rent claims.

→ [email protected]

Follow our WhatsApp channel for the latest business and markets updates.