Bomet Technical Institute Ltd t/a Lomu Investment v Ruto & 23 others (Environment and Land Case 78 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 3841 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court allowed a public school to replace a bank guarantee with a government-backed one, blocking eviction for now.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the condition for stay of execution should be reviewed for 'any sufficient reason' under Order 45 Rule 1
Yes. The 23rd Defendant made positive efforts to secure a bank guarantee over about twelve months, and its failure was due to insufficient cash flows attributed to reduced capitation - a sufficient reason to vary the condition.
The court set out the grounds for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1, including 'any other sufficient reason'. Relying on Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries, it accepted that 'sufficient reason' need not be analogous to the other grounds. The record showed repeated extensions of time, a PS commitment letter, and KCB's written refusal on cash-flow grounds. Weighing the totality of circumstances and the Defendant's willingness to comply, the court found sufficient cause to substitute the bank guarantee with a guarantee from the Principal Secretary.
Whether the Principal Secretary must be a party to issue a guarantee
No. As Chief Accounting Officer of the State Department of Education mandated to oversee funds allocated to public primary schools, the PS may issue a guarantee without being a party.
The Plaintiff objected that the Principal Secretary was a stranger with no locus standi and had shown no evidence of liquidity. The court rejected the locus argument by analogy to the bank, which was also not a party. It grounded the PS's capacity in his statutory role as Chief Accounting Officer accountable for funds allocated to public primary schools, making his undertaking a credible government guarantee securing the decree.
Whether an eviction order and police security should issue
No. With the stay condition reviewed and preserved, the eviction prayer is premature and cannot be granted.
The eviction application was expressly anchored on the 23rd Defendant's non-compliance with the bank guarantee condition of the stay order. Because the court varied that condition and the stay subsists pending appeal, the foundation for eviction fell away; the issue is not yet ripe and the prayer for police protection necessarily fails with it.
Legal principles established
#- A guarantor of a decretal sum for the purposes of a condition of stay of execution need not be a party to the proceedings.
- 'Any sufficient reason' for review under Order 45 need not be analogous to the other grounds for review.
Court orders
#- 1.The 23rd Defendant's Notice of Motion application dated 14th January, 2026 is allowed; Order (b) of the ruling delivered on 8th May, 2025 is reviewed and varied such that the condition requiring a bank guarantee of Kshs. 2,000,000/= from a reputable bank is substituted with a new condition that the 23rd Defendant shall furnish a guarantee from the Principal Secretary for the State Department for Basic Education for Kshs. 2,000,000/= within 21 days.
- 2.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 26th June, 2025 is struck out.
- 3.The costs of both applications shall be in the cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bomet Technical Institute Ltd t/a Lomu Investment v Ruto & 23 others (Environment and Land Case 78 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 3841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 78 of 2012 (Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3841/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.