Bukhari Parcel Service & General Supply Limited & 2 others v Garissa Maize Millers (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2462 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave tenants more time to appeal a rent tribunal ruling and paused its enforcement, but only if they deposit Kshs. 750,000 within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the application for leave to appeal out of time
The application was premature and misconceived because it was filed within the 30-day statutory period; however, as time had by the date of judgment lapsed, the court extended time by fourteen days in the interests of substantive justice
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act allows admission of an appeal out of time only on good and sufficient cause. The ruling was delivered on 17th July 2025 and the application filed on 7th August 2025, within the 30-day period under Section 79G and Section 15(1) of Cap 301. There was thus no delay to excuse. Article 159(2)(d) nonetheless permitted the court to regularize the process, the applicants having demonstrated a clear intention to appeal and annexed a draft Memorandum of Appeal.
Conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Stay granted conditionally: no unreasonable delay was shown; substantial loss was found not from the monetary component (since refundability was not disproved) but from the injunctive orders affecting possession; security fixed at Kshs. 750,000/= deposit
Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, promptitude and security. The application was filed within a short period, satisfying promptitude. The applicants failed to show the respondent could not refund Kshs. 750,000/=, so no substantial loss arose from the money decree (Century Oil, Antoine Ndiaye). However, the injunctive orders restraining access to the premises affect possession and operations and may alter the substratum of the dispute, justifying preservation of the status quo (Kenya Shell). Willingness to provide security was accepted, with a Kshs. 750,000/= deposit fixed as appropriate security.
Costs
Costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal notwithstanding the applicants' success
Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good reasons. The court found it fair and just that costs await the outcome of the intended appeal, given the applicants succeeded only in the application and the dispute remains live on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An application for extension of time filed before expiry of the statutory period is premature, but the court may regularize the process under Article 159(2)(d) to facilitate the right of appeal
- Substantial loss for a money decree lies in the inability of the respondent to refund the decretal sum, and the onus of proving this lies with the applicant
- Where impugned orders affect possession and operations, preservation of the status quo may be necessary to avoid rendering an intended appeal nugatory
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that prayer (3) for leave to file the appeal against the orders of 17th July 2025 was premature as the statutory time for lodging an appeal had not lapsed when the application was filed
- 2.Extension of time for the applicants to file and serve an appeal out of time within fourteen (14) days from the date of the order
- 3.Conditional stay of execution of the orders of 17th July 2025 issued in BPRT No. E014 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 4.The stay is conditional on the applicants depositing Kshs. 750,000/= in an interest-earning bank account in the joint names of the parties' counsel or with the court within thirty (30) days, failing which the stay lapses automatically
- 5.Costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- BPRT Case No. E014 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bukhari Parcel Service & General Supply Limited & 2 others v Garissa Maize Millers (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). null (not stated in the judgment as provided). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2462/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.