Regina Wanjiku Kimani T/A Reones Beauty and Cosmetics v Paul Ndungu Njihia & Samuel Kagoro Njihia
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to pause a rent tribunal's decision because the business owner showed no real loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss to justify a stay of execution
No substantial loss was demonstrated; alleged loss of goodwill is quantifiable in monetary terms and the Respondents can pay damages if the appeal succeeds
The court accepted the Respondents' contention that loss of goodwill and business can be quantified and compensated monetarily. The Applicant did not plead that the Respondents lack financial capability to meet damages, and mere assertions of substantial loss without documentary evidence are insufficient. The tribunal decree was effectively monetary in nature.
Whether the Applicant offered security for due performance of the decree
No security was offered; willingness to continue paying rent does not amount to security under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b)
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is mandatory. The purpose of security is to guarantee due performance of the decree ultimately binding on the applicant, not to punish the judgment debtor. The Applicant's expressed willingness to pay rent pending appeal did not satisfy this condition.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Yes - the application was filed seven days after the ruling, which the court found to be without unreasonable delay
The ruling was delivered on 10th March 2026 and the application filed on 17th March 2026. However, timeliness alone does not entitle an applicant to a stay; the other conditions of substantial loss and security must also be met.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The Memorandum of Appeal does not raise arguable points of law or fact; the issues were litigated before the tribunal and the appeal's chances of success are limited
Without delving into the merits of the appeal, the court noted on a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal that the issues raised had already been litigated before the tribunal, making the chances of success limited and the stay application an attempt to delay execution of a lawful decree.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution pending appeal
- Loss of business goodwill is capable of being quantified and compensated in monetary terms
- Willingness to pay rent does not amount to security for due performance of a decree under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b)
- Filing a stay application timeously does not excuse failure to satisfy the other conditions for stay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs will be in the main cause
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi
- Tribunal Case No. E1346 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over Business Premises Rent Tribunal decisions; stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Regina Wanjiku Kimani T/A Reones Beauty and Cosmetics v Paul Ndungu Njihia & Samuel Kagoro Njihia", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E046 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5785/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.