Businessman Chris Obure has suffered another major courtroom setback in the long-running battle over Nairobi’s Senteu Plaza, deepening a legal crisis that has steadily eroded his firm’s claims to one of the capital’s prime commercial properties.
In a judgment delivered on June 15, 2026, the Environment and Land Court dismissed an application by SBS Dunhill Group (East Africa) Limited, a company associated with Obure, that sought to overturn orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal protecting a new tenant occupying the building after the firm’s eviction.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a dispute that has evolved from a tenancy disagreement into a complex legal war involving ownership claims, allegations of irregular eviction, competing court orders and a multi-billion-shilling compensation claim.
At the centre of the conflict is Senteu Plaza, a commercial property owned by the Shah family. SBS Dunhill had occupied the premises for years before being evicted in May 2025. Shortly after the eviction, the owners leased the property to a new tenant, Martin Nyongesa, who moved into the building under a fresh lease agreement.
Fearing disruption to his occupation, Nyongesa sought protection from the tribunal. The tribunal subsequently issued orders preserving his tenancy and restraining interference with his possession pending determination of the dispute.
SBS Dunhill challenged those orders through judicial review proceedings, arguing that the tribunal acted improperly and exceeded its mandate. The company claimed there were serious inconsistencies surrounding the timing of the lease agreement granted to the new tenant and alleged that it had never been properly served with the proceedings that resulted in the protective orders.
However, the court found that the company failed to place sufficient evidence before the judge to support those allegations.
Justice Charles Mbogo emphasized that judicial review is concerned with examining the legality of decision-making processes rather than revisiting the merits of disputes already before another forum. The court held that questions surrounding how quickly parties negotiated and executed a lease agreement were contractual matters that did not automatically amount to procedural wrongdoing by the tribunal.
The judge further noted that critical records necessary to interrogate the tribunal’s conduct had not been presented before the court. Without the proceedings or clear documentary evidence supporting the accusations, the court concluded it could not speculate on what transpired before the tribunal or assume the role of an appellate court.
The application was dismissed, with each side ordered to bear its own costs.
The latest defeat is particularly significant because it reinforces legal protections already granted to the new tenant and effectively shuts down another avenue through which SBS Dunhill hoped to challenge the consequences of its eviction.
For Obure and his company, the ruling compounds a far more damaging loss suffered in late 2025.
In that separate case, SBS Dunhill sought to compel the owners of Senteu Plaza to sell the property to the company. The firm argued that it had acquired a legitimate expectation to purchase the building based on an alleged board resolution and its longstanding relationship with the owners.
The court rejected those arguments entirely.
Justice Mbogo found that the lease agreements relied upon by SBS Dunhill contained no enforceable promise requiring the owners to sell the property. The court further held that the board resolution cited by the company did not bind the building’s owners because they were not parties to the meeting at which it was allegedly passed.
More troubling for SBS Dunhill was the court’s finding concerning one of the signatures appearing on documents supporting the firm’s position. The judge observed that one of the purported signatories had died before the document was executed, raising questions about the authenticity of the signature and describing it as potentially fraudulent.
That finding dealt a severe blow to the credibility of the documents underpinning SBS Dunhill’s claim to acquire the property.
The court also noted that the owners had expressly communicated that Senteu Plaza was not for sale, extinguishing any argument that a binding promise or contractual obligation existed.
Taken together, the two decisions have dramatically strengthened the Shah family’s position in the dispute. The ownership claim has been dismissed. The challenge to the new tenant’s occupation has also failed. The building remains under the control of its registered owners and occupied by the tenant whose possession has now been protected by both the tribunal and the court.
The rulings leave SBS Dunhill increasingly isolated in its legal campaign over the property.
The company’s remaining major front is a separate Sh7 billion compensation suit pending before the Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court, where it seeks damages arising from the 2025 eviction.
That case now assumes even greater importance. With the courts having rejected efforts to secure ownership of Senteu Plaza and declined to interfere with protections granted to the replacement tenant, the compensation claim may represent the last significant opportunity for Obure’s firm to recover value from a dispute that has already produced a string of costly legal defeats.
For now, the Shah family remains firmly in control of Senteu Plaza, while the businessman who once sought to acquire the building continues to watch his legal options narrow with every judgment delivered.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
