Hanashim Investment Limited v Shah and Patel Industries Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E252 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to pause execution of a KSh 3.7 million rent decree because the tenant showed no substantial loss and offered no security or repayment plan.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff/applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2)
The application was brought without delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and did not address security for due performance of the decree; stay was refused.
The court applied the twin tests of Order 42 rule 6(2): substantial loss and security for due performance. The applicant only argued that water and electricity had been disconnected, without showing what substantial loss would result. No security was offered and no repayment proposal had been made despite admitted rent arrears exceeding Kshs.3,700,000/-. The landlord had been deprived of legitimate income, so equity did not favour the applicant.
Whether there remained anything capable of being stayed
Nothing remained to stay because the 3rd defendant had already levied distress pursuant to the proclamation notice dated 29th May, 2026.
The court found that distress had been levied on 23rd July, 2026 as admitted in the 1st defendant's replying affidavit. The relief sought was therefore overtaken by events, and the related notices of motion dated 14th July, 2026 and 30th June, 2026 were both spent.
Legal principles established
#- For stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2), the applicant must prove substantial loss, bring the application without unreasonable delay, and give security for the due performance of the decree
- A party who cannot demonstrate substantial loss and has not offered security or repayment proposals cannot obtain stay, particularly where the successful party stands deprived of legitimate income
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 14th July, 2026 is spent/dismissed.
- 2.The notice of motion dated 30th June, 2026 is spent.
- 3.The plaintiff/applicant to bear the costs of both applications.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hanashim Investment Limited v Shah and Patel Industries Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E252 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC No. E252 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5104/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.