Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBusiness Premises Rent Tribunal Appeal (Embu)· [2018] KEELC 324 (KLR)

Joe H. Karanja v Prisca Njura John [2018] KEELC 324 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court not indicated - Civil Appeal)
20 December 2018
YAY. M. Angima
1,022 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Embu refused to pause a tribunal eviction order because the tenant couldn't show real loss, and the tribunal had already given six months to relocate.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 15th August 2018 under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellant sought a stay of the judgment of the Chairman of the Business Rent Restriction Tribunal in Case No. 68/17 delivered on 20th June 2018, pending an appeal. He contended that unless stay was granted he would suffer irreparable and substantial loss and the appeal would be rendered nugatory, noting that the Tribunal's six-month grace period to vacate might lapse before the appeal was heard. The Respondent, through her attorney's donee Muriuki Ndwiga Mwita, opposed the application, arguing that the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions were unfulfilled, the appeal had no chance of success, the Appellant had filed three previous references to retain the premises indefinitely, and he had been given adequate time to vacate by 31st December 2018. The court framed the main question as what substantial loss, if any, the Appellant would suffer absent a stay. It observed that the Tribunal had not required the Appellant to close his butchery business, having expressly held that an order for vacant possession is not an order to close a business, and had granted a grace period of at least six months until 31st December 2018 to relocate. There was no material suggesting the premises would be unavailable should the appeal succeed. The court held the Appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and dismissed the motion with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2)

Holding

The Appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; the Tribunal had given him six months to relocate his butchery business and did not order its closure

Reasoning

The court examined the Tribunal's judgment which expressly noted that an order for vacant possession does not require the tenant to close his business. The tenant was given until 31st December 2018 to relocate. The court found no material showing the premises would be unavailable should the appeal succeed, hence the appeal could not be rendered nugatory.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of execution will not issue where the applicant has not demonstrated substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appellant's notice of motion dated 15th August 2018 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301)section 9
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Restriction Tribunal
Case No. 68/17
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joe H. Karanja v Prisca Njura John [2018] KEELC 324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Business Premises Rent Tribunal Appeal (Embu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/324/eng@2018-12-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.