Ngugi v Nyamu (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3503 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Murang'a refused to pause a tribunal's Kshs 180,000 award because the tenant could not show loss or offer security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable procedural regime for stay pending appeal to the ELC from the BPRT
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies, not Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act binds the Court to the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Act. The twin principles in Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter (arguable appeal and nugatory appeal) govern appeals to the Court of Appeal only and are inapplicable to appeals to the Environment and Land Court. The motion was therefore to be tested against Order 42 rule 6(2).
Whether substantial loss was established
No; payment of Kshs 180,000 would not constitute substantial loss and the Appellant did not show the Respondent could not refund if the appeal succeeded.
The court found the Appellant had not proved he stands to suffer substantial loss. If he paid the decretal sum of Kshs 180,000 to the Respondent, that would not be substantial loss. Critically, the Appellant's affidavit nowhere suggested that the Respondent would be unable to refund the amount should the appeal succeed, so the nugatory-risk element was not made out.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Yes; the motion was filed on time once court holidays were discounted.
The ruling appealed against was delivered on 18-12-2025 and the motion was filed on 22-1-2026. Under Order 50 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, time stopped running on 21-12-2025 and resumed on 14-1-2026, so the filing was within time. This, the only condition the Appellant satisfied, could not rescue the motion since all three conditions had to be met.
Whether security for the due performance of the decree was offered
No; the Appellant's affidavit made no offer of security, which undermined the application and demonstrated lack of good faith.
Provision of security is a mandatory requirement under Order 42 rule 6(2)(b). The Appellant's fourteen-ground, seventeen-paragraph affidavit made no offer of security for the due performance of the decree. This failure was treated as undermining the application and demonstrating lack of good faith, independently disentitling him to the discretionary remedy.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy all three conditions of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and provision of security; failure to satisfy any one disentitles the applicant.
- On an appeal to the Environment and Land Court from the BPRT, the applicable stay provisions are Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, by virtue of Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, and not Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; the twin Kangethe Kinyanjui principles do not apply.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 21-1-2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Murang'a
- E010/2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngugi v Nyamu (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3503/eng@2026-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.