Bomet Technical Institute Limited t/a Lomu Investment v Ruto & 22 others; The County Government Of Bomet (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 78 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 3651 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court paused the school's eviction pending appeal, but only after it posts a Kshs 2 million bank guarantee—government funding grants no special treatment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Delay in filing the stay application
The application was filed without unreasonable delay
Judgment was delivered on 26th September 2024 and the application filed on 10th/15th October 2024, a short interval. The court found the first condition of Order 42 Rule 6(2) satisfied on this limb.
Substantial loss
The applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss merely by pointing to imminent eviction
Following Karungu v Masira, the court held that an eviction order is a lawful decree issued after a full hearing; a mere assertion of imminent eviction does not amount to substantial loss, notwithstanding the applicant's claims about learners and public funds.
Security for due performance of the decree
The public school applicant is not exempt under Order 42 Rule 8 and must give security
Relying on Paul Kipsang Kosgei and Barnabas East Africa, the court held that the applicant, a body capable of suing and being sued, cannot invoke government funding to avoid security; a court cannot allow an applicant to claim substantial loss while refusing security.
Legal principles established
#- An institution funded by government, such as a public school board of management, is not 'Government' for purposes of the Order 42 Rule 8 exemption and must furnish security for stay
- Imminent eviction under a lawful decree is not, by itself, proof of substantial loss for stay of execution
Court orders
#- 1.Pending hearing and determination of the appeal filed by the 23rd Defendant/Applicant, there shall be a stay of execution of the entire judgement of this Court delivered on 26th September, 2024
- 2.The 23rd Defendant/Applicant shall provide a bank guarantee of Kshs. 2,000,000/= from a reputable bank within thirty days of this ruling
- 3.In the event of failure to comply with (b) above, the orders of stay shall stand vacated
- 4.The costs of this application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rules 6 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bomet Technical Institute Limited t/a Lomu Investment v Ruto & 22 others; The County Government Of Bomet (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 78 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 3651 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho ELC Case No. 78 of - (sic). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3651/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.