General Pack Limited & 2 others v L.P Holdings (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2993 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to pause a rent increase on appeal because the tenants did not prove specific loss or offer security.
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 appellant has satisfied the requirements as set forth in Order 42 rule 6(2) for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements of Order 42 rule 6(2) for stay of execution pending appeal
The application was dismissed because the applicants neither specified the substantial loss they would suffer nor offered security, despite no unreasonable delay in filing
The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2), which requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security. Relying on Machira t/a Machira & Co v East African Standard No.2, the court held that loss must be specified with particulars. The applicants merely alluded to loss from paying the increased rent without demonstrating it. Although the application filed on 12th February 2026 after judgment on 15th January 2026 was not delayed, no security was proffered, so all requirements were not met.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss must be specifically demonstrated with particulars; mere assertion that loss will result is insufficient for a stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)
Court orders
#- 1.This Application is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs be awarded to the Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT)
- Not stated in the judgment (References against notice of termination of tenancy)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Tribunal's judgment (rent increase) pending hearing and determination of the appeal
The applicants failed to demonstrate substantial loss and failed to offer security; not all requirements of Order 42 rule 6(2) were satisfied
Costs
Costs be awarded to the Respondent.
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.
It is not enough merely to state that substantial loss will result, or that the appeal if successful will be rendered nugatory.
My finding is that the Applicants have not shown to the satisfaction of the court that they will sufier substantially if stay is not granted.
This Application is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Costs be awarded to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment bears dates in 2026 (judgment of the Tribunal delivered 15th January 2026; this ruling dated 14th May 2026), which appear anomalous
The case title, case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "General Pack Limited & 2 others v L.P Holdings (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2993 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2993/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.