A high-stakes legal dispute involving a Nairobi businessman and a firm linked to businessman Chris Obure has shed light on a controversial eviction from a multi-billion-shilling commercial property, despite the tenant reportedly having paid over Sh981 million in rent.
Premium
To unlock the full article: Choose one of the options below:
Ksh 10 – This article only
Ksh 300 – Monthly subscription
Ksh 2340 – Yearly subscription (10% off)
Appearing before Justice Charles Kariuki on Wednesday, city businessman Pankaj Chhaganlal Shah was put to task to explain the circumstances surrounding the forcible eviction of SBS Dunhill Group Limited from Senteu Plaza, a prime property located in the Kimimani area of Nairobi.
The court heard that Senteu Plaza was leased to SBS Dunhill from September 2017 to September 2023 under a six-year agreement. The property is jointly owned by four brothers: the late Ajeetkumar Chhaganlal Shah, the late Chandulal Chhaganlal Shah, and surviving siblings Pankaj and Kamalkumar Chhaganlal Shah.
According to SBS Dunhill’s lawyer, Ms Muthoni Nkonge, the company was irregularly evicted from the premises on 16 May 2025, despite fulfilling its lease obligations and remitting over Sh1 billion in rent and partial payments toward the agreed purchase of the property.
She informed the court that the eviction was conducted based on a court order that had since been stayed, making the removal of her client not only unlawful but also in contempt of court. “The tenant is not in the leased building,” Pankaj admitted under questioning. “Through my lawyer, we obtained orders for them to vacate. I did not know the orders had been stayed, and the case is still ongoing.” Ms Nkonge pressed Shah during cross-examination, and he conceded that the eviction order was being contested in court, adding a new layer of complexity to the case.
The heart of the dispute lies in claims that SBS Dunhill was to purchase the property for Sh1.3 billion upon expiry of the lease. The firm argues that it invested nearly USD 10 million in the property with this understanding in mind. However, Pankaj denies receiving any money towards the purchase price, instead stating that the company had defaulted on rent payments amounting to Sh10 million, which he says justified the eviction.
“The tenant had written indicating he was in arrears and was looking for funds to pay. The rent was not settled,” Pankaj told the court. Interestingly, the court was told that the original lease agreement had been signed by Pankaj’s now-deceased brothers, not by Pankaj himself, raising questions about his authority in enforcing or terminating the contract.
The matter is set to be mentioned in October to confirm compliance with court submissions and fix a date for judgment. The forthcoming decision is expected to shed light on ownership claims, the legality of the eviction, and any financial or contractual liabilities surrounding the contentious commercial property.
The case has attracted considerable attention in business and legal circles, not only because of the sums involved but also due to the high-profile nature of the parties. Observers say the outcome could have wide-ranging implications for landlord-tenant relations in Kenya’s commercial property sector.
