Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBPRT E775 consolidated with BPRT E772 (appeal)· [2025] KEELC 6370 (KLR)

Stanhope Engineers Limited & another v Guandai; Mburu (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E132 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6370 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 June 2025
JOJUDY OMANGE
1,461 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to pause a tribunal eviction order because the tenants provided no evidence of harm or the case documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 13th September 2024 and amended on 21st January 2025, the applicants sought stay of execution of the judgment of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT E775 consolidated with BPRT E772) delivered on 11th September 2024, in which notices of termination of tenancy issued by Mary Njeri Mburu were upheld and the applicants ordered to vacate the suit premises within 7 days. The applicants, who had lost a reference challenging the notice on grounds of the issuer's capacity, also sought to enjoin Mary Njeri Mburu as an interested party, contending she held only letters of administration ad litem while a grant ad colligenda bona was held by Winfred Nyambura Karugu, the former wife of the deceased. The respondent swore a detailed replying affidavit asserting she managed the premises, that rent arrears existed, and that the Tribunal had considered all issues including the grants. The court, framed two issues: whether stay should issue and whether Mary Njeri Mburu should be enjoined. Applying Order 42 rule 6 and the Vishram Ravji Halai conditions, the court found the applicants had not shown substantial loss: they produced no evidence of developments on the property, failed to annex the lower court proceedings and impugned judgment, and did not controvert the rent arrears claim. The joinder prayer was found incoherent since Mary Njeri Mburu was already the applicants' counterparty and had filed a replying affidavit. The application was dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal. Ruling delivered via Microsoft Teams on 12th June 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution pending appeal was warranted

Holding

Stay refused; the applicants did not demonstrate substantial loss, attached no evidence of developments on the property, did not annex the lower court proceedings or judgment, and did not controvert the rent arrears averment

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 rule 6 conditions as summarized in Vishram Ravji Halai vs Thornton & Turpin. The overriding objective required the applicants to present all facts enabling the ends of justice to be determined. Their failure to annex the proceedings and impugned judgment, and their silence on rent arrears, meant substantial loss was not established. The grant-capacity issue could be addressed in the main appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether Mary Njeri Mburu should be added as an interested party

Holding

Refused; she is already the party the applicants dealt with in the Tribunal and has filed a replying affidavit in this application

Reasoning

The court found the prayer incoherent because the applicants filed the Tribunal reference in response to the notice of termination issued by Mary Njeri Mburu, making her the counterparty throughout, and she actively participated by filing a replying affidavit. There was no basis for joinder as an interested party.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6 requires sufficient cause, substantial loss, furnishing of security, and application without unreasonable delay
  • An applicant for discretionary relief must place before the court all facts enabling the court to exercise its discretion in their favour

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 13th September 2024 (amended 21st January 2025) is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesSections 1A and 1B (overriding objective)

Cases cited (1)

  • Vishram Ravji Halai vs. Thornton & Turpin
    Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 1990 [1990] KLR 365
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
BPRT E775 consolidated with BPRT E772
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stanhope Engineers Limited & another v Guandai; Mburu (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E132 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6370 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). BPRT E775 consolidated with BPRT E772 (appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6370/eng@2025-06-12

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