Del Valle Limited v Shah & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2006 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling)

Del Valle Limited v Shah & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2006 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling)

The Appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the balance of convenience favours stay. The lease expired by effluxion of time, no renewal or holding-over occurred, and continued occupation is trespass. The lower court properly exercised jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction. Granting stay would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 2006 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Del Valle Limited; 1st Respondent: Veeral Shah; 1st Respondent: Roma Wadhwa; 2nd Respondent: Dunhill Consulting Limited & another & another
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 April 2026
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Mandatory Injunction, Lease Expiry, Trespass, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Mandatory Injunction Lease Expiry Trespass Interlocutory Applications

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Del Valle Limited

Appellant

Veeral Shah

1st Respondent

Roma Wadhwa

1st Respondent

Dunhill Consulting Limited & another & another

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is entitled to stay of execution of the eviction order pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant has demonstrated substantial loss or that the balance of convenience favours grant of stay
  3. 3 Whether the lower court properly exercised jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the balance of convenience favours stay. The lease expired by effluxion of time, no renewal or holding-over occurred, and continued occupation is trespass. The lower court properly exercised jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction. Granting stay would perpetuate unlawful occupation and prejudice the Respondents. The application was filed without unreasonable delay but does not meet the conjunctive requirements for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellant’s application dated 8th March 2026 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear own costs of the application.