Agrawal & another v Mugo (Land Case Appeal E026 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2178 (KLR) (21 April 2026) (Ruling)

Agrawal & another v Mugo (Land Case Appeal E026 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2178 (KLR) (21 April 2026) (Ruling)

The Applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, as they did not demonstrate substantial loss, provide security, or show an arguable appeal. The balance of hardship favours the Respondent, who continues to suffer deprivation of her sole means of livelihood due to the Applicants’ conduct in disregard of Tribunal orders. The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 2178 (KLR)
Parties
1st Appellant/applicant: Shradah Agrawal; 2nd Appellant/applicant: Funscapes Limited; Respondent: Mercy Mugo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 April 2026
Case Number
Land Case Appeal E026 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (notice of Motion for Stay of Execution) / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Applications, Business Premises Rent Tribunal, Equitable Relief, Costs
Source Language
English
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Interlocutory Applications Business Premises Rent Tribunal Equitable Relief Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shradah Agrawal

1st Appellant/applicant

Funscapes Limited

2nd Appellant/applicant

Mercy Mugo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (notice of Motion for Stay of Execution) / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants have satisfied the threshold for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  2. 2 What orders should issue as to costs of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, as they did not demonstrate substantial loss, provide security, or show an arguable appeal. The balance of hardship favours the Respondent, who continues to suffer deprivation of her sole means of livelihood due to the Applicants’ conduct in disregard of Tribunal orders. The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Respondent shall have the costs of this application.