Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 2993 (KLR)

General Pack Limited & 2 others v L.P Holdings (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2993 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 May 2026
MKMohammed N. Kullow
1,085 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court refused to pause a rent increase on appeal because the tenants did not prove specific loss or offer security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, tenants on LR No Nairobi/Block 15/360 and LR No Nairobi/Block 15/438, had opposed a notice of termination of tenancy served by the respondent through References filed at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. By a judgment delivered on 15th January 2026, the Tribunal, presided over by Hon. P. Kitur, disallowed the references and upheld the notice, including an increase in rent. Aggrieved, the applicants filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 12th February 2026 together with an application seeking stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, supported by an affidavit of Lawrence Sila, who deponed that the rent increase would take effect before the appeal was determined and that they stood to suffer substantial loss. The respondent opposed through a replying affidavit of Abraham Munene, contending that the applicants had not demonstrated substantial loss and that a valid order ought to be executed so he could enjoy the fruits of his judgment, the Tribunal having already allowed the tenants 30 days to adjust to the new rates. The court isolated a single issue: whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of Order 42 rule 6(2). Applying Machira t/a Machira & Co v East African Standard No.2, the court held that substantial loss must be specified with particulars; the applicants had merely alluded to loss without demonstrating it. The application was, however, filed timeously. The applicants also offered no security. All requirements not being met, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements of Order 42 rule 6(2) for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicants neither specified the substantial loss they would suffer nor offered security, despite no unreasonable delay in filing

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2), which requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security. Relying on Machira t/a Machira & Co v East African Standard No.2, the court held that loss must be specified with particulars. The applicants merely alluded to loss from paying the increased rent without demonstrating it. Although the application filed on 12th February 2026 after judgment on 15th January 2026 was not delayed, no security was proffered, so all requirements were not met.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Substantial loss must be specifically demonstrated with particulars; mere assertion that loss will result is insufficient for a stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This Application is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs be awarded to the Respondent.
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
Not stated in the judgment (References against notice of termination of tenancy)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "General Pack Limited & 2 others v L.P Holdings (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2993 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2993/eng@2026-05-14

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