Mandal & another (Suing as the administrators/personal representatives on behalf of the Estate of Rajinder Kumar Mandal - Deceased) v Bakran; Sheth (As the Executor of the Estate of Ved Prakash Mandal) & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 172 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 7344 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Mombasa Environment and Land Court refused to pause a judgment against Mombasa property occupants because they couldn't prove specific, tangible loss from the decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2) was met
Not met; there was nothing positive in the dismissal order capable of being stayed, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial loss.
The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2), requiring substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security. The judgment had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and directed cancellation of the white card register for Mombasa/Block X/254A; the defendant pointed out that no positive orders were issued against Mombasa/Block X/254. Costs were yet to be taxed, so nothing was executable. Hardship and age alone did not establish substantial loss on the authorities cited.
Whether the distress for rent of 28th August 2025 flowed from the court's decree and could be set aside
It did not emanate from the judgment; no order could issue on the second application, and any party may file a fresh suit.
The second application sought setting aside of a distress for rent of Kshs 27,315,000 premised on annual rent of Kshs 45,000, while the plaintiffs claimed they had paid Kshs 1,500 per a 1986 letter from the defendant's then rent collector. The court found nothing connecting the distress to the judgment or subsequent proceedings, so it declined to intervene and left the parties free to litigate the rent dispute in a fresh suit.
Who bears the costs of the two applications
The plaintiffs, having failed in both applications, to pay the defendant's costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. Since both applications failed, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs. The court noted it would have preserved the plaintiffs' peaceful occupation had the conditions precedent been satisfied, but entitlement to enjoy the fruits of judgment prevailed.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution pending appeal requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security; the merits of the appeal are for the appellate court.
- Substantial loss must be proved with specific details and particulars; no stay where no pecuniary or tangible loss is shown.
- Costs follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.That the plaintiffs' applications dated the 14th July 2025 and 1st September 2025 are without merit.
- 2.That the two applications are dismissed with costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mandal & another (Suing as the administrators/personal representatives on behalf of the Estate of Rajinder Kumar Mandal - Deceased) v Bakran; Sheth (As the Executor of the Estate of Ved Prakash Mandal) & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 172 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 7344 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELC Civil Case No. 172 of 2019 (Notices of Motion dated 14th July 2025 & 1st September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7344/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.