Njuguna v Ngware, Njoroge & Kinuthia t/a Jofremic Investment (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E020 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 685 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Naivasha court refused a tenant's late appeal against a rent tribunal order, ruling her seven-month delay was unexplained and the money decree refundable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the Section 79G / Order 50 Rule 6 test for extension of time
Leave to appeal out of time denied; the approximately seven-month delay was not credibly explained.
The court applied the Salat and Leo Sila Mutiso principles: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal success and prejudice to the respondent. The sole explanation was chronic illness and hospitalization, but the only medical chit annexed was dated 4th March 2024, before the ruling. No treatment or admission records covered March to November 2025. Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber until an auctioneer's proclamation wakes them.
Whether stay of execution should be granted under Order 42 Rule 6
Stay refused; no substantial loss shown and the Applicant came with unclean hands.
Under Order 42 Rule 6, the applicant must show substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and offer security. The decree was for rent and utility arrears - money recoverable by refund if the appeal succeeds - so per Kenya Shell v Kabiru no substantial loss was demonstrated. Further, the Applicant allegedly continued occupying the premises without paying rent or utilities, an unclean-hands consideration against an equitable remedy.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy, not a right; the applicant must credibly and reasonably explain the delay, and delay of about seven months without evidence covering the delay period is unexplained.
- For a purely monetary decree, substantial loss is not made out unless the applicant shows the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's application to file the Appeal out of time is denied.
- 2.The second limb of the application (stay of execution pending appeal) is denied.
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 5th November 2025 is dismissed with costs.
- On appeal from
- Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- E017 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 15 of the Landlord and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishment) Act; Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 50 Rule 6 and 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna v Ngware, Njoroge & Kinuthia t/a Jofremic Investment (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E020 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 685 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 5th November 2025 (Nakuru Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case No. E017 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/685/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.