https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4407

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **AT MILIMANI LAW COURTS, NAIROBI** **ELCLA E260 OF 2025** **SYLVIA ABONDI ……………..………………………... APPELLANT/APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **CHABRIN AGENCY……………………..….……..……………..1ST RESPONDENT** **HENRY HAMISI………………………….…….....……………..2ND RESPONDENT** **HIGH CLASS AUCTIONEERS……………..……………………..3RD DEFENDANT** **RULING** **Introduction** 1. The matter is coming up for determination of the Applicant’s Notice of motion application dated 4th December 2025 seeking for stay orders in the following terms 2. Spent 3. **THAT** there be a stay of execution of the orders issued on 12th November 2025 in RRC/E1422/2025 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. 4. **THAT** this Court do issue an order staying distress for rent, auction, removal and/or sale of the Plaintiff’s household goods by High Class Auctioneers or any other auctioneer pending appeal. 5. **THAT** this Court do issue an order restraining the Defendants from evicting, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet possession of the suit premises pending appeal. 6. **THAT** the Plaintiff be granted 90 days to clear the outstanding rent arrears of Kshs 117,600. 7. The application was premised on grounds that the Rent restriction tribunal in RRC/E1422/2025 gave orders for the applicant to pay the arrears of rent in the sum of Ksh 117,600/= within very strict timelines considering she was unemployed and unable to settle the same. That the defendants have engaged auctioneers who intend to levy distress for rent the 90 days having lapsed hence this application for stay as it will render the appeal nugatory 8. The respondent responded in a replying affidavit sworn on the 8th April 2026 by one Gibson Gitau where he deponed that the application had been overtaken by event as the appellant had moved out of the premises after clearing the arrears. 9. The court directed for the application to be heard by way of written submissions’ appellant did not submit whereas the respondents submitted by filing submissions dated 27th April 2026. 10. Counsel for the respondent reiterated the arguments in the replying affidavit that since the substratum of the application no longer existed, there was no application to prosecute as the dispute had been settled by the appellant vacating and clearing the arrears. Counsel submitted that the appellant should bear the cost of the application as costs follow the event. **Analysis and determination** 1. Having looked at the application and the responses thereto, the only issue for determination is whether the application has been overtaken by events and if the answer is in the negative then the other issue is whether the application is merited. 2. It is not in contention as per the applicant’s supporting affidavit that she admits to being in arrears in the sum of Ksh 117, 600 /=and could not have been able to settle the same in the 90 days. She however deponed that she is now with a stable job and able to settle the arrears. The application was made on the 4th December 2025 and the 1st respondent had deponed in his replying affidavit that as at the time of swearing the same on the 4th April 2026 the appellant had settled all the arrears and vacated. In the case of **Raphael Kakene Muloki & Another -Vs- Cabinet Secretary of Land & 2 Others (2021)eKLR** it was held that where an application has been overtaken by events, issuance of the orders sought therein would be tantamount to issuing orders in vain.As per the proceedings in court, since the filing of the application, the applicant has not prosecuted the said application nor attended any court sessions despite service ,an indication that she is no longer interested in prosecuting the application. I find that the application has been overtaken by events and therefore fails. 3. On the issue of costs, the general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court is satisfied otherwise. In the present case, having held that the application has been overtaken by events, I find that the 1st respondent is entitled to costs of defending the application. **Final disposition** The upshot of the above is that I order as follows;- 1. The Notice of Motion application dated 4th December 2025 is hereby dismissed. 2. Costs to the 1st Respondent. **It is so ordered.** **DATED**, **SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** virtually at **NAIROBI** on this **13th** day of **July 2026.** **MOHAMMED N. KULLOW** **JUDGE** **Ruling delivered in the presence of: -** **N/A** for the Plaintiff/Applicant **Mr. Abel Loch** for the Respondent **Ms. Mwangi** Court Assistant