Muriuki v Kariuki (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E113 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4055 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court paused collection of Kshs 1.78 million in rent arrears until an appeal is heard, but only if half the amount is deposited within 45 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the replying affidavit was competent
The replying affidavit was incompetent as the deponent did not disclose his capacity or authority, so it was struck out and the application proceeded unopposed
The deponent, Diria Abdi Ahmed, was neither the Respondent nor did he disclose the capacity in which he swore the affidavit. No authority was exhibited to show he was authorised to depose on the Respondent's behalf. The court therefore struck out the affidavit, leaving the application unopposed.
Whether substantial loss was demonstrated
Substantial loss was established
The Tribunal ruling directed the Appellant to pay rent arrears of Kshs 1,775,900. The Applicant was apprehensive that execution would commence if no stay was granted. On the evidence on record the court found that irreparable loss would result absent a stay.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The application was filed without unreasonable delay
Judgment was delivered on 26th May 2025 and the application was filed on 24th June 2025, roughly a month later. The court found this did not constitute unreasonable delay under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a).
Whether security for the due performance of the decree had been given
The Applicant had not expressed willingness to provide security, but the court could direct it and did so by ordering a deposit of half the decretal sum
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is mandatory. Although the Applicant had not expressed willingness to provide security, the court held it could direct him to do so, and conditioned the stay on a deposit of half the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account, failing which the stay would lapse automatically.
Legal principles established
#- The court must balance the rights of the successful party against those of the appellant whose appeal may be rendered nugatory
- The applicant must prove, not merely assert, substantial loss
- Security under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is a mandatory condition for a stay
Court orders
#- 1.A stay of execution of the Tribunal ruling is hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal
- 2.The Applicant shall deposit half the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the parties' advocates within 45 days from the date of this ruling
- 3.In default of compliance with prayer (b) above, the stay shall lapse automatically
- 4.Costs of the application will abide with the outcome of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) Nairobi
- Tribunal Case No. E021 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriuki v Kariuki (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E113 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4055 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Civil Suit No. E113 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4055/eng@2026-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.