Maboneng Limited t/a Maboneng Lounge & Restaurant v Le Blanc Company Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4525 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss to justify a stay of execution pending appeal
The Applicant had not satisfactorily demonstrated substantial loss, but the court exercised its discretion conditionally in the interest of justice.
The court acknowledged the Applicant is a business operating restaurant premises which would lose possession and its investment if distress for rent were levied. However, it endorsed the principle that execution of a lawful decree does not automatically constitute substantial loss and that the Applicant made generalized allegations. Balancing the right of appeal against the decree holder's right to the fruits of judgment, the court granted a conditional stay rather than an unconditional one.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The application was filed without unreasonable delay.
The tribunal judgment was delivered on 19th December 2025 and the application was filed on 5th January 2026, a short interval. The court was satisfied this satisfied the delay requirement of Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a).
What security for due performance of the decree should be ordered
The Applicant's offer of Kshs. 400,000/= was rejected; the full decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account was found reasonable.
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is couched in mandatory terms. Citing authority that security is not punitive, and the Supreme Court's caution against imposing conditions that impede access to justice, the court nonetheless held that requiring security for a money decree is neither punitive nor unreasonable. The Respondent's proposal that the entire decretal sum be deposited in a joint interest-earning account was found reasonable, and the stay was made conditional on that deposit within thirty days.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution.
- Execution of a lawfully given decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss; a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of judgment.
- Security under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is for guaranteeing due performance of the decree, not for punishing the judgment debtor, and courts must not impose punitive conditions.
Court orders
#- 1.There shall be a stay of execution of the judgment dated 19th December 2025 and all consequential orders pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- 2.The stay is conditional upon the Applicant depositing the entire decretal sum of Kshs. 1,150,000/= in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling, in default the stay shall automatically lapse and the Respondents are at liberty to execute.
- 3.The Applicant shall continue paying the monthly rent in the sum of Ksh 150,000/= as ordered by the tribunal.
- 4.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
- On appeal from
- Nairobi Business Premises Tribunal
- Cause E465 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 38 of the Business Premises Rent Restriction Act / Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maboneng Limited t/a Maboneng Lounge & Restaurant v Le Blanc Company Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4525 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA E001 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4525/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.