Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldoret BPRT Case No. E038 of 2024 consolidated with Eldoret BPRT Case No. E052 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2026)· [2026] KEELC 4672 (KLR)

Aya Ltd v Kalenjin Auto and Hardware Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4672 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (Business Premises Rent Tribunal Appeal)
23 July 2026
CYC.K. Yano
3,242 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a landlord's attempt to pause a tribunal ruling, confirming you cannot stay a judgment that orders you to do nothing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Aya Limited (appellant/applicant), the landlord, filed a Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2026 seeking stay of execution of a BPRT judgment delivered on 16th March 2026 in Eldoret BPRT Case No. E038 of 2024 (Gurdit Singh Shop v Aya Limited) consolidated with E052 of 2024 (Kalenjin Auto and Hardware Limited v Aya Limited), pending an intended appeal. The tribunal had dismissed the landlord's notices of termination of tenancy, allowed the tenants quiet possession, and awarded each tenant costs of Kshs. 50,000/=. The applicant, through its director Isaac Njoroge, argued the appeal was arguable, that it stood to suffer substantial loss, that the application was made without delay, and that the respondents were men of straw unable to refund the decretal sums. Both respondents opposed, contending the judgment was a negative order incapable of execution or stay; that the memorandum of appeal did not challenge the costs award; that a challenge to costs lies by Reference, not appeal; and that they were financially capable of refunding any sums paid. Justice C.K. Yano framed four issues and held that the tribunal's judgment, save for costs, was a negative order incapable of execution and therefore of stay, following KCB v Tamarind Meadows and related authorities. Citing Anthony Kiplangat Ngeno v Jonathan Ole Tankoi, the court held stay cannot issue in respect of costs alone, no substantial loss was demonstrated, and costs were not even challenged in the memorandum of appeal. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, the court finding the parties should bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the tribunal's judgment was a negative order incapable of stay

Holding

Yes - the dismissal of the termination notices placed no obligation on the appellant; only the award of costs was capable of execution

Reasoning

The court examined the tribunal judgment of 16.03.2026 and found its effect was merely to dismiss the notices of termination and allow tenants quiet possession. No action or restraint was required of the appellant, so the judgment was negative, following Kenya Commercial Bank v Tamarind Meadows and the authorities there cited. A negative order is incapable of execution and hence of stay, save for costs.

p. 6
02

Whether stay can issue in respect of the costs award of Kshs. 50,000 each

Holding

No - stay is not granted in respect of costs alone, and the memorandum of appeal does not even challenge the costs award

Reasoning

Following Anthony Kiplangat Ngeno v Jonathan Ole Tankoi, the court held stay is designed to prevent an appeal being rendered nugatory; no nugatory risk was shown on costs. The appellant also alleged respondents were men of straw but adduced no evidence of inability to refund, while respondents demonstrated long-standing businesses and financial capacity.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A negative order - one that places no obligation on a party - is incapable of execution and therefore incapable of being stayed, save in respect of costs
  • Stay of execution cannot be granted in respect of costs only, as stay is granted to prevent an appeal being rendered nugatory
  • Substantial loss is the cornerstone for the grant of an order of stay of execution
  • A challenge to an award of costs lies by way of a Reference vide a Miscellaneous Cause, not a memorandum of appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2026 is dismissed with no order as to costs
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
Eldoret BPRT Case No. E038 of 2024 consolidated with E052 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction over BPRT decisions; application under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Aya Ltd v Kalenjin Auto and Hardware Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4672 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Eldoret BPRT Case No. E038 of 2024 consolidated with Eldoret BPRT Case No. E052 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4672/eng@2026-07-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.