Stanhope Engineers Ltd & another v Estate of Guandai & another (Environment and Land Appeal E177 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3833 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out part of the landlords' appeal and refused to pause the Tribunal's decisions, so the Tribunal rulings stand.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the appeal against the ruling of 24/4/2025
The appeal against the 24/4/2025 ruling is incompetent and an abuse of the Court process because the Appellants had first sought review of those very orders, and the Memorandum of Appeal was filed about 4 months and 2 weeks later without leave, beyond the 30-day period under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Court adopted the reasoning in Sunrise Hauliers, Gab International and HA v LB that a party cannot apply for review and simultaneously appeal against the same order. Having consciously elected review, the Appellants could not turn around and appeal the same orders. Further, the memorandum was filed far outside the statutory 30 days without any extension of time, so the appeal would be incompetent either way.
Competency of the appeal against the ruling of 28/8/2025
The Memorandum of Appeal filed on 10/9/2025 was within the 30-day period from the ruling of 28/8/2025; the appeal is competent but limited strictly to that ruling.
The Court noted the appeal was filed on the twelfth day after the delivery of the ruling of 28/8/2025, which fell within the statutory period in Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act. It therefore took the appeal as strictly limited to that ruling.
Whether stay of execution should be granted
The application for stay fails because the order of 28/8/2025 was a negative order dismissing a review application, incapable of execution; the Court lacks jurisdiction to stay it.
Relying on Order 42 Rule 6 and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, the Court reiterated the conditions for stay. It then held that the Tribunal's ruling merely dismissed the Appellants' review application and imposed no positive obligation on any party. Citing KCB v Tamarind Meadows, Western College v Oranga, Beatrice Kariuko Muriithi and Milkah Jeruto, it found nothing capable of being stayed.
Legal principles established
#- A party who has sought review of an order cannot then appeal against the same order on the same grounds.
- A stay of execution can only issue in respect of a positive order capable of execution; a dismissal of an application is a negative order incapable of execution.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal against the Ruling of 24/4/2025 is declared incompetent and is struck out.
- 2.The Appellants' application dated 9/9/2025 for stay of execution is dismissed.
- 3.Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents.
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Landlord and Tenant Tribunal)
- BPRT Case No. E1366 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 15 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301; Orders 40, 42 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanhope Engineers Ltd & another v Estate of Guandai & another (Environment and Land Appeal E177 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3833 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). BPRT Appeal arising from BPRT Case No. E1366 of 2024 (application dated 9/9/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3833/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.