Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedThika ELCLA E159 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5043 (KLR)

Muriu v Gitau (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E159 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5043 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 July 2026
JOJ. M. Onyango
1,269 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court paused enforcement of a rent tribunal ruling, but only after the landlord deposits Kshs. 40,000 within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Catherine Munjiru Muriu, moved the Environment and Land Court by Notice of Motion dated 30th December 2025 seeking stay of execution of a ruling delivered on 9th December 2025 by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Thika BPRT No. E007 of 2025, together with consequential orders, pending an intended appeal. She argued the appeal was arguable, that execution would render it nugatory because outstanding rent arrears might prove irrecoverable if the Respondent vacated the premises given his history of rent default, that the application was filed timeously, and that she was willing to furnish security. The Respondent, Peter Gitiha Gitau, opposed, contending the Applicant had not satisfied the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions, had shown no substantial loss, and that granting stay would deprive him of the fruits of a lawful decision. The court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant had shown sufficient cause to warrant a stay of execution pending appeal. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2), and guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979], the court held the requirements are cumulative. It found the apprehended prejudice - substantial impairment of recovery of rent arrears if the Respondent vacated - transcended the ordinary consequences of execution and established substantial loss; the application was timely; and the Respondent's interests required protection through security. The motion was allowed on terms: stay of execution of the Tribunal ruling pending the intended appeal, conditional on the Applicant depositing Kshs. 40,000 as security within thirty days, failing which the stay stands discharged. Costs of the application were to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss to warrant stay of execution

Holding

Substantial loss was established because recovery of outstanding rent arrears may be substantially impaired if the Respondent vacates the premises

Reasoning

The Court held the Applicant's apprehension was not mere conjecture: if the Respondent vacated without settling the alleged arrears, given the Respondent's history of rent default, recovery of the sums may be substantially impaired. That prejudice transcends ordinary consequences of execution and suffices to establish substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2).

p. 5
02

Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay

Holding

The application was filed with reasonable promptitude and no inordinate delay arose

Reasoning

The Court briefly considered timeliness and accepted that the Applicant moved with reasonable promptitude, satisfying the second limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2), though no detailed chronology was set out in the ruling.

p. 5
03

What security and terms should govern the stay

Holding

A deposit of Kshs. 40,000 within 30 days was ordered as adequate security, failing which the stay stands discharged

Reasoning

The Court balanced the Applicant's right of appeal against the Respondent's entitlement to the fruits of judgment, holding the Respondent's interests must be protected. A deposit of Kshs. 40,000 was found adequate security, and a conditional stay best reconciled the competing rights.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution; stay is discretionary upon satisfaction of Order 42 Rule 6 conditions
  • The requirements of Order 42 Rule 6(2) are cumulative

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 9th December 2025 in Thika BPRT No. E007 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.Stay conditional on the Applicant depositing Kshs. 40,000/- as security within thirty (30) days of the date of the ruling, failing which the stay shall stand discharged without further orders
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Thika BPRT No. E007 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muriu v Gitau (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E159 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5043 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Thika ELCLA E159 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5043/eng@2026-07-28

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