Abninasir v R&K Investments Limited & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E202 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3018 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to pause a ruling evicting a tenant because he hid unpaid rent and couldn't prove his claimed losses.
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 application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay
- 2.Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted
- 3.Whether the applicant offered security for due performance of the decree
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Application dismissed; delay was not an issue (filed 4 days after the ruling) but substantial loss and sufficient cause were not established, and the applicant's material non-disclosure of unpaid rent arrears disentitled him to equitable relief.
The court accepted the application was filed timeously, four days after the impugned ruling. On substantial loss, the applicant claimed Ksh 50,000,000 in investment, but the annexures (Mpesa statements addressed to individuals) did not prove payments to contractors. The trial court had set aside the interim orders because of material non-disclosure of Ksh 1,700,000 arrears, and this court agreed the interim orders would not have issued had all facts been disclosed, citing authority that concealment compromises a party's claim to discretionary equitable relief.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone for granting stay of execution
- Material non-disclosure disentitles a party to equitable relief
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of motion dated 4th October 2025 is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of enforcement of the ruling of Hon. M. A. Otindo SPM dated 30th September 2025
Applicant failed to establish substantial loss and sufficient cause under Order 42 Rule 6(2); material non-disclosure made him undeserving of equitable relief
Costs
Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant.
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.
That the Notice of motion dated 4th October 2025 is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant.
no substantial loss has been established neither has suficient cause been established
For a party to fail to disclose material facts or to disclose them in such a way as to mislead the court as to the true facts, amounts to abuse of the court process
Issues in the judgment
#Date of delivery stated as 2026, which post-dates events of 2025 and appears typographically inconsistent
Judgment contains an incomplete citation reference
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abninasir v R&K Investments Limited & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E202 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3018 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3018/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.