[2008] KEHC 445 (KLR)
The court found that the core of the applicant's appeal is her tenancy of the suit premises. If the Tribunal's order is executed, the applicant would lose possession, and there is a real risk that the premises could be occupied by a third party, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory. The court also recognized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 445 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Eva Muthoni Karanja; Respondent: Ann Wanjue Thiga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 577 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay Application
- Outcome
- Stay of execution granted subject to conditions.
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Business Premises Tenancy, Substantial Loss, Appeal Nugatory, Landlord Tenant Dispute
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eva Muthoni Karanja
Appellant
Ann Wanjue Thiga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the Tribunal's order pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the core of the applicant's appeal is her tenancy of the suit premises. If the Tribunal's order is executed, the applicant would lose possession, and there is a real risk that the premises could be occupied by a third party, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory. The court also recognized that the premises are business premises, and eviction would likely cause the applicant substantial loss. On these grounds, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution, subject to conditions ensuring payment of outstanding and future rent, timely filing of the appeal, and expeditious disposal of the matter.
Court Disposition
Stay of execution granted subject to conditions.
Orders
- The applicant shall pay all outstanding rent and any rent due to the respondent within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
- The applicant shall continue paying rent to the respondent as it falls due on each subsequent month.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Appeal 577 of 2008
EVA MUTHONI KARANJA….…………….……APPELLANT
VERSUS
ANN WANJUE THIGA……...………………....RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Eva Muthoni Karanja (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), has filed an appeal against the orders of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal delivered on the 9th October, 2008 in BPRT Case No.755B of 2007. The applicant has now come to this court under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking to have execution of the order of the Tribunal stayed pending the determination of her appeal. The applicant has annexed a copy of the order to her affidavit filed in support of the application. The order indicates that the Landlord’s notice was allowed and the tenant ordered to vacate the premises on 1st December, 2008. The applicant, who is the tenant, maintains that she has been carrying on business at the suit premises for a while, and has gained goodwill and clients. Therefore unless the order of stay of execution is granted, she will not only suffer substantial loss, but her appeal which she maintains raises weighty issues may be rendered nugatory.
The respondent Ann Wanjue Thiga, who is the Landlord, objects to the application maintaining that the applicant’s appeal is frivolous, lacks merit and is only intended to deny her the fruits of her litigation. It is further contended that the applicant has not placed any material before the court in support of her contention that she will suffer substantial loss, if the order of stay of execution is not granted.
Having considered the contending arguments raised by the parties and the authorities which were cited, I am satisfied that the substratum of the applicant’s appeal is her tenancy of the suit premises. If the order of the Tribunal is executed she will lose possession of the suit premises. If that happens there is a serious likelihood that the premises may fall into the hands of a 3rd party, and that will obviously render the applicant’s appeal nugatory. Secondly, the premises being business premises, the possibility of the applicant suffering substantial loss if she is evicted from the premises is real. For these reasons, I find that there is justification for exercising my discretion in the applicant’s favour. Accordingly, I shall stay execution of the order of the Tribunal made on 9th October, 2008, on the following conditions: -
(i) That the applicant shall pay all outstanding rent and any rent due to the respondent within 7 days from today.
(ii) The applicant shall continue paying rent to the respondent as it falls due on each subsequent month.
(iii) The applicant shall file and serve a record of appeal within 60 days from the date hereof and take all necessary action to facilitate the speedy disposal of the appeal.
(iv) If the appeal is not disposed off within 9 months from the date hereof, the orders of stay of execution shall stand dismissed unless otherwise extended by this court.
Those shall be the orders of this court.
Dated and delivered this 16th day of December, 2008
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Advocate for the appellant absent
Jaoko for the respondent