Black Seal Tawala Limited t/a the Lit Lounge v Olkeju Brands Limited & another; Taskimhabanos Chill & Grill Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4998 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause a Kshs 2 million rent debt ruling because the appellant proved no real harm and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether substantial loss was established
Not established; the Appellant adduced no evidence of substantial loss and did not deny owing rent arrears of Kshs. 2,038,438.38
The court held that an applicant must prove, not merely allege, substantial loss. On the record, the Interested Party had leased the suit premises and operated a bar and restaurant; the Appellant produced no evidence of the loss it would suffer and did not dispute the rent arrears claimed, so the first condition under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a) failed.
Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay
Yes - the stipulated time did not run during the vacation period, so the application was filed without delay
Although the Respondents argued the application and appeal were filed outside statutory timelines without leave, the court accepted the Applicant's submission that time did not run during the vacation period. The delay condition under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a) was therefore satisfied, but this alone could not save the application.
Whether security for the due performance of the decree was offered
No - the mandatory security condition was not met
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is couched in mandatory terms. The Appellant expressed no willingness to provide security, instead invoking the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act, which the court held cannot oust the express provisions of the rules.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution must actually prove substantial loss, not merely assert it
- The overriding objective cannot be used to oust the mandatory conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 29th January 2025 dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- BPRT Cause No. E246 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal; interlocutory application under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Black Seal Tawala Limited t/a the Lit Lounge v Olkeju Brands Limited & another; Taskimhabanos Chill & Grill Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4998 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 29th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4998/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.