Degisat Services Limited v Hirani (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court let a tenant appeal a rent tribunal decision late, and stopped the landlord from attaching property while the appeal proceeds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the Applicant leave to file his appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the proceedings before the BPRT ought to be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 3.Whether the Applicant satisfied the principles to be granted orders of temporary injunction
- 4.Who to bear the costs of the Applications and what orders to issue
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file an appeal under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Extension of time granted because the delay was attributable to the late upload of the ruling, not the Applicant.
The court applied the Salat principles: extension is equitable and discretionary, requiring explanation of delay and absence of prejudice. The Applicant showed numerous requests for the ruling, which was only uploaded four months after delivery, exceeding the 30-day window under Section 79G. The tribunal's delay could not be visited on the Applicant, who was found diligent.
Stay of proceedings pending appeal
Stay of BPRT proceedings granted to avoid parallel proceedings.
Relying on Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and authorities including Kenya Wildlife Service v Mutembei, the court noted the stringent test for stay of proceedings. It found that allowing the tribunal case to continue alongside the appeal would waste judicial resources and constitute an abuse of process, and that sufficient reason for the stay had been demonstrated.
Temporary injunction - prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience
All three Giella conditions satisfied; temporary injunction and stay of execution granted.
The Applicant faced proclamation over a motor vehicle still registered in the financier's name (Platinum Credit Limited); its attachment and possible disposal would cause irreparable harm not compensable in damages. The applicant was apprehensive of impending execution, establishing a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs notwithstanding success.
Although Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event, the court exercised its discretion to depart from that default on the facts and circumstances of the pleadings, ordering each party to bear its own costs of the two applications.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal out of time may be admitted where the appellant shows good and sufficient cause for the delay, and diligent efforts to obtain a copy of the ruling constitute such cause.
- Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action granted only in special circumstances; parallel proceedings over the same subject matter amount to an abuse of process warranting a stay.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 16th August 2024 and Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2024 allowed
- 2.Leave granted to the Applicant to appeal out of time against the ruling of 12th March 2024; the intended appeal to be filed and served within 30 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Stay of proceedings in BPRT Cause No E244 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 4.Temporary injunction restraining the Landlord/Respondent, Makini Auctioneers agencies, agents, any other auctioneers, assignees, servants from any proclamation, attaching items, carting away items from the suit premises, advertising or in any way executing the purported proclamation notice pending hearing and determination of the appeal
- 5.Stay of execution of any proclamation as instructed by the Respondent/Landlord pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 6.Mention on 26th June 2025 for admission of the appeal and directions under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 11, 13 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 7.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- BPRT Case No E244 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A, 75, 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Rent Tribunal)
Relief refused
#Permanent restraining order against the Respondent and auctioneers
The court granted only temporary/interlocutory restraint pending the appeal; no permanent injunction was issued.
Costs of the applications in favour of the Applicant
The court declined to award costs despite the Applicant's success.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Ultimately, upon causing an in-depth analysis to the framed issues herein, the Honourable Court based on the Principles of preponderance of probabilities and the balance of convenience proceeds to make the following orders
That the intended appeal be filed and served within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
There be a stay of proceedings in the BPRT in cause no E244 of 2023 is hereby issued pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
That an order for temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Landlord/ Respondent, Makini Auctioneers agencies, agents, any other auctioneers, assignees, servants from any proclamation, attaching items, carting away items from the suit premises advertising or in any way executing the purported proclamation notice pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
That there be an order of stay of execution of any proclamation as instructed by the Respondent/Landlord pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
That each party to bear its own costs.
The same will be akin to having parallel proceedings ongoing in two separate courts over the same subject and a clear abuse of the court process.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the Respondent's grounds of opposition - paragraph 8 refers to 'grounds of opposition dated 30th January 2025' while the opening paragraph says the Respondent filed a Replying Afidavit dated 30th August 2024 opposing both applications.
The court framed four issues (paragraph 23) but labels the injunction issue as 'ISSUE No. b)' while paragraph 28 discusses stay of proceedings under issue (a) and the injunction is later headed 'ISSUE No. b)', leaving costs labelled 'ISSUE d)' without an explicit issue (c) heading.
The judgment alternately describes the vehicle as the Appellant's motor vehicle and as still registered in the financier's name.
The case number of the appeal before the High Court/ELC is not stated on the face of the ruling; only the tribunal cause number BPRT E244 of 2023 appears.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Degisat Services Limited v Hirani (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Business Premises Rent Tribunal Appeal (BPRT Appeal No. E244 of 2023 appeal) - Kwale ELC. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3256/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.