Agrawal & another v Mugo (Land Case Appeal E050 of 2026)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause a tribunal's order because the applicants could not show they would suffer real loss if the judgment took effect.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
They did not; the impugned judgment only required them to move a tent to a different location, not to vacate the premises, so no loss was shown
The court perused the tribunal judgment and found the applicants were asked to relocate a tent, not evicted. Even their own photographs showed they could still operate on the premises. The claimed eviction-based loss therefore did not hold weight.
Whether willingness to deposit security for due performance justifies stay
No; offering security equal to the decretal sum while refusing to settle the decree is not a justifiable ground for stay absent proof the respondent cannot refund
The court noted the decretal sum of Ksh 334,850 was unpaid and identical to the security offered. The claim that the respondent might be unable to refund was a mere unproved assertion of impecuniosity.
Admissibility of photographic evidence attached to the further affidavit
The court considered the photographs despite the objection, finding they showed the applicants still operating and suffering no loss
The respondent objected that the photographs lacked an electronic certificate. The court held the respondent produced no counter-evidence of the situation on the ground, and the photographs in fact aided the respondent's case.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution; without evidence of it the applicant fails
- Execution of a lawfully obtained decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss; a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of the judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 26th March 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Tribunal
- Nairobi BPRT No E301 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Business Premises Tribunal; stay of execution sought under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agrawal & another v Mugo (Land Case Appeal E050 of 2026)", Case Analysis (2026). Land Case Appeal E050 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5662/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.