Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedRent Restriction Appeal (Notice of Motion dated 28th June 2023)· [2024] KEELC 1245 (KLR)

Andabwa & 24 others v Registered Trustees, Teleposta Pension Scheme & another (Appeal E46 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1245 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 February 2024
9,971 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~40 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Mombasa tenants won a stay pausing a rent increase and possible eviction, but only if they pay Kshs 15,000 monthly rent on time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (L.L. Naikuni, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 28th June 2023 by 24 tenants of the Aga Khan Estate seeking stay of execution of a ruling of the Rent Restriction Tribunal, Mombasa, delivered on 9th June 2023 in Rent Restriction Assessment Case No. 53 of 2015, which assessed standard rent at Kshs 18,000/= per unit exclusive of services, up from Kshs 12,500/=. The tenants, who had filed an appeal to the High Court, feared eviction under new tenancy agreements requiring acceptance of the new rent or vacation by 30th June 2023. They offered to continue paying Kshs 12,500/= as security. The 1st and 2nd Respondents (the landlord and its managing agent) opposed, arguing the appeal was not arguable since the tenants never filed submissions at the tribunal, that overpaid rent would be recoverable, and that many tenants were in substantial arrears. The court framed three issues: merit of the application, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. Applying Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and authorities including Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal and Kenya Shell v Kibiru, the court found the application filed without delay, that substantial loss (eviction) had been demonstrated - describing the one-week vacation demand as 'draconian' - and rejected the Kshs 12,500/= offer as inadequate security. The court allowed the application, staying execution of the tribunal's ruling on condition the tenants pay Kshs 15,000/= monthly rent by the 5th of each month, failing which the stay lapses. Records of Appeal were to be filed within 30 days, with mention on 14th May 2024. Costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellants/Applicants satisfied the pre-conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Holding

The application satisfied the pre-conditions: it was filed without unreasonable delay, substantial loss (eviction) was demonstrated, and security could be fixed by the court; the application was allowed subject to conditions

Reasoning

The application and memorandum of appeal were filed on 30th June 2023, shortly after the 9th June 2023 ruling, satisfying the delay test. The court found the new tenancy agreements demanding acceptance within about a week 'draconian', showing the risk of eviction amounting to substantial loss. The appellants' offer of Kshs 12,500/= per month was rejected as insufficient security, and the court fixed Kshs 15,000/= per month as security, with default lapsing the stay.

p. 17
02

Whether the appellants' offer to continue paying the old rent of Kshs 12,500/= constituted adequate security

Holding

No; the offer exclusively benefited the appellants and did not secure due performance of the tribunal's order; the court substituted Kshs 15,000/= per month as the security

Reasoning

Applying Mwaura Karuga and Focin Motorcycle, the court held security is measured by the ultimate decree payable if the appeal is lost, and it is for the court, not the applicant, to determine the security. If the appeal failed and the appellants had paid only Kshs 12,500/=, the respondents could not recover the shortfall; if the appeal succeeded, overpayments could be offset against future rent.

p. 17
03

Costs of the application

Holding

Costs follow the event under Section 27(1), but since the matter is still proceeding, costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal

Reasoning

Though the applicant succeeded, the court held that because the appeal is still pending, the fair course was to make costs abide the outcome rather than award them to either party immediately.

p. 18

Legal principles established

#
  • For a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6, the applicant must show substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and furnish security for due performance of the decree
  • Security for stay is for the court to determine and must achieve due performance of the ultimate decree, not merely be what the applicant is willing to offer
  • Security for costs ought to be seen as a debt already owed to the respondent, who is entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 28th June, 2023 be and is hereby found to be meritorious and hence allowed subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out
  2. 2.An order of stay of execution of the ruling made on 9th June 2023 by the Rent Restriction Tribunal at Mombasa in Rent Restriction Assessment Case No. 53 of 2015 until the appeal is heard and determined
  3. 3.The Appellants/Applicants to pay a monthly rent of Kenya Shillings Fifteen Thousand (Kshs 15,000/=) per month exclusive of service charge until the appeal is heard and determined
  4. 4.Any default in paying the monthly rent of Kshs 15,000/= on or before the 5th of every month will automatically lapse the order of stay of execution
  5. 5.Appellants/Applicants granted 30 days to compile, file and serve the Records of Appeal; mention on 14th May, 2024 for directions under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 42 Rules 11, 13 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  6. 6.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Sections 1A, 3A, 27(1), 79B
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6; Order 42 Rules 11, 13 and 16; Order 43 Rule 6(1) and (4)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010general reference

Cases cited (10)

  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University
    [2015] eKLR
  • Tropical Commodity Suppliers Ltd
  • James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    Bungoma HC Misc Application No 42 of 2011
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] eKLR
  • Wilson v Church (No 2)
    12 Ch D (1879) 454
  • Samvir Trustee Limited v Guardian Bank Limited
    [2007] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & another
    [1986] eKLR
  • Mwaura Karuga t/a Limit Enterprises v Kenya Bus Services Ltd & 4 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & another v Africa Merchant Assurance Company Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Focin Motorcycle Co. Limited v Ann Wambui Wangui & another
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
Rent Restriction Tribunal, Mombasa
Rent Restriction Assessment Case No. 53 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 43 Rule 6(1) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (appellatory jurisdiction over the Rent Restriction Tribunal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Andabwa & 24 others v Registered Trustees, Teleposta Pension Scheme & another (Appeal E46 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Rent Restriction Appeal (Notice of Motion dated 28th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1245/eng@2024-02-22

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