Emaar Consult Limited v Lakhman (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a company's bid to pause payment of a Kshs. 8 Million judgment because it proved no real loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant would suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
The Applicant did not prove substantial loss; the claim that its projects would stall was unsupported by evidence and the Kshs. 8 Million decree was not shown to be substantial to its projects.
The court noted that an applicant must go beyond vague and general assertions and lay a basis for the alleged loss. The Applicant only said it had invested the Respondent's funds in a project. The court found the Applicant did not demonstrate how refunding Kshs. 8 Million would cause substantial loss, and the claim that projects would stall lacked evidential support.
Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay
Yes - the ruling was delivered on 8th July 2024 and the application filed on 9th August 2024, so the application was made without undue delay.
The court compared the date of the ruling appealed from (8th July 2024) with the filing date of the application (9th August 2024) and found the delay of about one month was not unreasonable, satisfying that limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Whether the Applicant offered security for the due performance of the decree
No - the Applicant did not express willingness to provide security, failing the mandatory condition.
Relying on Arun C Sharma and Focin Motorcycle, the court observed security under Order 42 guarantees due performance of the decree and that offering security is a mark of good faith. Since the Applicant never expressed willingness to provide security, this mandatory condition was not satisfied.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution must prove, not merely allege, substantial loss; mere assertion that a project will stall without evidence is insufficient.
- Under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b), provision of security for due performance of the decree is mandatory and an applicant who does not express willingness to provide security fails that condition.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 9th August 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Nairobi Magistrates Court (MCELC)
- Nairobi MCELC No. 502 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (appellate jurisdiction over subordinate court decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Maboko Distributors Ltd & 2 others v Njahira (Environment and Land Appeal E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 993 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 993 (KLR)20 Feb 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emaar Consult Limited v Lakhman (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not_stated. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1379/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.