1. Before the Court is the Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2026 seeking, principally, an order of stay of execution of the ruling of the Rent Restriction Tribunal delivered on 25th March 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The Applicant also seeks injunctive relief restraining the Respondents from interfering with his occupation of the suit premises. The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant.
2. The Applicant contends that the Tribunal erred in upholding a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and striking out the proceedings. He further avers that unless the orders sought are granted he faces eviction and interference with his possession of the suit premises.
3. The application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Hussein Yakub Mohammed dated 27 April 2026. The Respondents contend that the appeal is incompetent as against the 1st Respondent who is deceased and has not been substituted; that the Tribunal correctly found that the monthly rent of Kshs. 34,500 exceeded the jurisdictional threshold under the Rent Restriction Act; that the intended appeal is devoid of merit; and that the Applicant has already obtained stay orders in separate proceedings before the Magistrates' Court. They further contend that no executable order exists capable of being stayed.
4. I have considered the application, the affidavits on record and the submissions of the parties. The starting point is that the ruling appealed against upheld a preliminary objection and struck out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal consequently discharged the interim orders that had previously been granted.
5. In my view, the order sought to be stayed is a negative order. The Tribunal did not direct the Applicant to do anything, nor did it order the payment of any sum of money or the performance of any positive act. It merely upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the proceedings. Such an order is incapable of execution and, consequently, incapable of being stayed.
6. The Court of Appeal has consistently held that where a court merely dismisses a suit or application, there is no positive order capable of execution save for costs. In such circumstances, an order of stay cannot issue.
7. To the extent that the Applicant fears eviction or other action by the Respondents, such actions do not flow from the order of the Tribunal sought to be stayed. A stay of execution cannot therefore issue on the basis of apprehended consequences that are not embodied in the decree or order appealed from.
8. In the premises, I find no basis for granting an order of stay of execution. The Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2026 is accordingly dismissed with costs.
2. The Applicant contends that the Tribunal erred in upholding a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and striking out the proceedings. He further avers that unless the orders sought are granted he faces eviction and interference with his possession of the suit premises.
3. The application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Hussein Yakub Mohammed dated 27 April 2026. The Respondents contend that the appeal is incompetent as against the 1st Respondent who is deceased and has not been substituted; that the Tribunal correctly found that the monthly rent of Kshs. 34,500 exceeded the jurisdictional threshold under the Rent Restriction Act; that the intended appeal is devoid of merit; and that the Applicant has already obtained stay orders in separate proceedings before the Magistrates' Court. They further contend that no executable order exists capable of being stayed.
4. I have considered the application, the affidavits on record and the submissions of the parties. The starting point is that the ruling appealed against upheld a preliminary objection and struck out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal consequently discharged the interim orders that had previously been granted.
5. In my view, the order sought to be stayed is a negative order. The Tribunal did not direct the Applicant to do anything, nor did it order the payment of any sum of money or the performance of any positive act. It merely upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the proceedings. Such an order is incapable of execution and, consequently, incapable of being stayed.
6. The Court of Appeal has consistently held that where a court merely dismisses a suit or application, there is no positive order capable of execution save for costs. In such circumstances, an order of stay cannot issue.
7. To the extent that the Applicant fears eviction or other action by the Respondents, such actions do not flow from the order of the Tribunal sought to be stayed. A stay of execution cannot therefore issue on the basis of apprehended consequences that are not embodied in the decree or order appealed from.
8. In the premises, I find no basis for granting an order of stay of execution. The Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2026 is accordingly dismissed with costs.