Crown Paints loses fight over illegal advert on Thika building

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

Regional paints manufacturer, Crown Paints Kenya Plc, has lost a legal dispute arising from unauthorised painting of a commercial building in Thika with its brands without the property owner’s consent.

The decision sounds a caution to corporates currently in a frenzy to market their brands across the country through mural advertising. Placing physical structures, banners, or paint on a private building without consent violates property rights.

The High Court upheld a Sh3.5 million damages award against the company for using Punjab Engineering Works Ltd’s commercial building for advertising purposes.

The court dismissed Crown’s appeal, finding that Punjab had established trespass by producing its title and photographs showing Crown branding on its commercial property.

The dispute began in 2020 after Punjab, the registered owner of the property, sued the paint manufacturer in the Chief Magistrate’s Court.

Punjab said Crown, through its agents, painted the front of its building for advertising and gained commercial benefit without permission.

Punjab filed the suit seeking a declaration of trespass, general damages, Sh1.4 million in compensatory damages, costs and interest. Crown denied the claim and asked the magistrate to dismiss it.

The case went to a hearing, but Crown did not attend the hearing or call evidence. Punjab’s witness testified that the paint manufacturer had illegally painted Crown Paints branding on the building.

The magistrate awarded Punjab Sh3.5 million as general damages for trespass, plus costs. Crown challenged the decision, arguing that the magistrate had assumed it continued benefiting from the branding and had awarded an excessive amount.

Crown Paint told the High Court that Punjab had not produced any documentary evidence to support their assertion or the Sh1.4 million claimed as special damages. It argued that the appropriate award should have been Sh50,000.

The company also said it had not profited from the paintings and had restored the property to its original condition. It argued that the damages were more serious than supported by legal principles.

Punjab opposed the appeal, saying Crown had not obtained a stay and had partially settled the decree. It argued that the appeal could not be used to delay execution of a valid judgment.

The court rejected Crown’s argument that Punjab had to prove specific financial loss before receiving damages. It said courts can award reasonable damages once trespass is established.

“It is important to note that once a claim of trespass has been established, the claimant need not prove the specific loss suffered for damages to be awarded,” the High Court said in the judgment dated July 23, 2026.

The court said the amount of damages may take account of the length of illegal occupation, the nature of the trespass and the trespasser’s conduct.

Crown also argued that the magistrate had improperly treated part of the award as special damages. The

Court rejected that argument, finding that the magistrate had awarded one lump sum rather than tabulated special damages.

The court further found that Crown had failed to rebut Punjab’s evidence at trial. It found no basis to interfere with the award, holding that Sh3.5 million was reasonable after considering the trespass, infringement of the property right, the commercial nature of the building and Crown’s conduct during the trial.

Reporting originally appeared via Business Daily. Read the full source for additional context.