Wesonga Jakoyah, Mutembei Marete Kigen Cheruiyot T/A Wesonga, Mutembei & Kigen Advocates v Monyaka Investments Limited

e) Any other order that the court may deem necessary to grant in the circumstances. f) THAT costs of this application be provided for. 2. The Motion is based on the grounds outlined on the face of it and the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Mutembei Marete the 2 nd Applicant. He deponed that the failure to adhere to the terms of the order issued on the 5th February 2026 had been occasioned by the fact that the Respondent never banked the cheques that they had previously sent to them and hence making the arrears accumulate to a higher figure which made it impossible to settle the same within 15 days. That the actions of the Respondent were made in bad faith and it is only right for the court to extend its orders and order for status quo to be maintained 3. The Respondent opposed the application by filing a replying affidavit sworn on the 24th March 2026 by Ashwin Gidoomal. He deponed that the application is not merited as the excuse given was made in bad faith as it did not raise any substantial grounds for the orders sought. That the Applicants should have settled the remaining arrears first and left out the ones in contention in relation the unbanked cheques and then sought on the way forward. He further deponed that the Applicants were much aware of what arrears were due as they should have known that the cheques had not been banked since there was no debit from their accounts. ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 2

page 2 of 7

That no sufficient reason has been advanced to extend the orders which orders of stay were conditional that all arrears should be settled within 15 failure to which the orders will lapse automatically 4. The application was dispensed off by way of written submissions with the Applicant filing submissions dated 1 st September 2026 whereas the Respondent filed submissions dated 26th June 2026. Applicant’s submissions 5. The Applicants submitted as the contents of their supporting affidavit reiterating the fact that the refusal of the Respondent to bank cheques issued and collect cheques drawn in their favour led to the accumulation of rent that made it impossible for the them to comply with the orders given on 5 th February 2026 within 15 days as directed. Respondent’s submissions 6. The Respondent submitted that the court’s orders issued on the 5 th February 2026 were clear, unambiguous, and self-executing and upon failure to comply, the orders lapsed by operation of the Court’s ruling and no further act was required facts known by the Applicant but still failed to fulfil their obligations. 7. It was further submitted that the Applicant had not provided sufficient cause for extension of the orders as no sum had been ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 3

page 3 of 7

deposited in the Respondent’s account to show their commitment to settle the arrears. That the basis for non-payment was not sufficient enough as the unbanked issuing cheques does not amount to payment unless honoured, presented, and cleared and that burden remained on the Applicants to ensure compliance with the Court order requiring payment within 15 days. Counsel submitted that the burden of convenience tilted in not allowing for extension orders as the Applicants were still in occupation and not paying rent which was prejudicial to them asking the court not to issue the injunctive orders to aid a tenant who has repeatedly defaulted and now seeks indulgence without compliance. Counsel relied in the case of Touchstone Properties Limited -vs- Mwobia (Tribunal Case E818 of 2025) KEBPRT 432 (KLR) Analysis and determination 8. Having considered the application, the responses and the submission the issue arising for determination is 1. Whether the Applicants have provided sufficient cause to extend the orders for status quo issued on the 5 th February 2026 2. Whether the compliance period given of 15 days should be extended 9. Regarding the first issue from the record, it is clear that this court made orders for status quo on the 5th February 2026 conditional on ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 4

page 4 of 7

the Applicants settling the rental arrears that had accumulated within 15 days. The Applicants were very much aware of this condition but failed to comply and due to the non-compliance, the stay orders automatically lapsed on 20th February 2026.Even as the Applicant has filed this application dated 25th February 2026, the status quo orders had automatically lapsed. 10. The Applicants have indicated that they were unable to settle the arears as they were given a statement of account that gave a higher figure than what they had anticipated pointing out to the fact that they had issued cheques to the Respondent who apparently had not banked the same .The Respondent has not disputed that they did not bank the said cheques due to the fact that they considered there was no tenancy relationship as between the Applicants and themselves as they had already issued notice to vacate but the Applicants were still in illegal occupation. 11. The Respondent as the landlord is entitled to have vacant possession of the premises upon issuance of a valid notice of termination of tenancy which issue of whether notice was sufficient was dealt by the lower court in MCELC 282 OF 2025 in its ruling dated 13th June 2025 where the Applicants were ordered to vacate and in disagreeing with the decision the Applicants filed this appeal. 12. I am of the view that the Applicants should have made an application for extension of the orders before the lapse of the 15 days. Further as indicated by the Respondent there has been no demonstration of good will from the Applicants to settle the arrears ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 5

page 5 of 7

in the sums, they expected them to be and hence the reason advanced that the Respondent did not bank the cheques is not convincing enough. The issue of the Applicants owing arrears is not disputed and by virtue of that the Respondent is entitled to have vacant possession of his premises. The Applicants in their letter dated 17th February 2026 had requested for a 6-month notice period to allow them vacate and from the look of things they are still in possession the 6 months having lapsed and not settled any arrears. 13. The purpose of an interim status quo order is to preserve the subject matter of proceedings pending hearing of the parties and determination of the issues raised before the Court. Such an order is not a determination of the rights of the parties and does not confer any proprietary or possessory rights upon either party. It is intended to prevent actions that may render the eventual determination of the Court nugatory 14. The Respondent has indicated that should the court be inclined to grant the orders sought, then it should be conditional on the Applicants settling the full arrears within 7 days and continue paying rent to the Respondent. Under Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has power to extend time within which its orders ought to have been complied even after the lapse of the time. Final disposition In the upshot of the above, I make the following orders; ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 6

page 6 of 7

i. That the status quo orders issued on the 5th February 2026 are hereby reinstated conditional on the following terms; a) That the Respondent is to provide a statement of account to the Applicants who are to settle all the arrears within the next ten (10) days failure to which the status quo orders shall automatically lapse. b) The Applicants are to continue paying rent pending the determination of this appeal. c) Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED virtually at NAIROBI on this 21st day of September 2026. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: Mr. Kigen for the Appellants Ms. Kalsi for the Respondent/Applicant Ms. Mwangi Court Assistant ELCLA E110 OF 2025 R 7

page 7 of 7