1.In its notice of motion dated August 5, 2022 the applicant pray for orders that there be stay of execution in Nakuru BPRT No E 027 of 2021 pending the hearing and determination of the main appeal.
2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and the affidavit of the applicant herein sworn on the same date. he deposed that the honorable chairman of the BPRT Tribunal ordered that he pays rent from September 21, 2021 to August 30, 2022. That the said orders did not form part of the respondent’s prayers.
3.He deposed further that the tribunal did not take into consideration that the respondent was not his landlady. Additionally, that the tribunal failed to address the issue of his preliminary objection dated November 1, 2021 and affidavit sworn on the March 25, 2022. According to him it was in the interest of Justice that he be granted the orders sought by this honorable court, pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. That the respondent will not be prejudiced if the orders sought are granted and that he stands to suffer irreparable loss and damages if the orders are not granted.
4.The respondent through her replying affidavit sworn on September 3, 2022 has vehemently opposed the application. She deposed that Nakuru Municipality Block 2/134 was legally registered in the name of Amosamu Builders and Developers Limited. That the shareholders of the said company were her late father, Amos Kabiru Kimemia and another. Further, that she was requested by the family to manage the property on their behalf and they therefore entered into an agency agreement with capital care homes to manage the property on behalf of the aforementioned company.
5.She deposed further, that the applicant herein rented one of the shops on the property for one year with effect from December 2020 to December 2021 at a monthly rent of Kenya shillings 15,000/-payable in advance. That however, the applicant defaulted on the payment of the monthly rent and she instituted a cause of action against the appellant at the business premises rent tribunal to recover the outstanding rent.
6.That vide an order dated September 28th, 2021 the appellant was ordered to pay 3 months’ rent without prejudice at the sum of kshs 15,000 per month. Further, that the appellant failed and or refused to comply with the court order and instead filed a preliminary objection dated November 1st, 2021.
7.The respondent went on to depose that their advocates on record made an oral application to amend the Notice from her name to the name of Amosamu Builders and Developers Limited, the legal registered owner of the Premises. That the Business Premises Rent Tribunal granted the order as prayed.
8.The respondent deposed also that the appellant was requesting for stay of execution of the court orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Civil Procedure Rules, but he had not established that he would suffer substantial loss by being required to pay outstanding rent. That the appellant had not offered any security for the stay of execution that he requests for. Further, that it was unfair or prejudicial to her and a miscarriage of justice for the appellant to continue in occupation of the property while he is not paying any rent. It is the respondent belief that the appellant was grossly abusing the court process in bid to avoid his contractual obligations.
9.When the matter came up for hearing the court directed that the same be determined by way of written submissions which all parties have complied.
10.The applicant in his submissions submitted that the tribunal orders in Nakuru BPRT No E027 of 2021 was contrary to the rules of natural justice. He urged the court to allow his application with costs pending the hearing of his appeal.
11.The respondent on her part submitted that the applicant had not established that he would suffer substantial loss if he is required to pay the outstanding rental arrears and to vacate the premises. She relied on order 42 rule 6 and order 22 of the Civil Procedure rules for stay of execution.
12.In addition, she placed reliance on the case of James Wangalwa & another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto  eKLR. The respondent also while placing reliance on the case of RWW v EKW  eKLR submitted that the appellant’s rights in this case ought to be balanced with hers as she continues to suffer because he had not paid rent in excess of one year. Additionally, the respondent submitted that the appellant had not offered any security for costs and thus the present appeal was an attempt to deny her the fruits of her judgement. She placed reliance on the case of Absalom Dova v Tarbo Transporters  eKLR.
Analysis and Determination
12.I have considered the pleadings and submissions by the applicants and in my view the issue arising for determination is whether this court should grant stay of execution of the orders issued in Nakuru BPRT No E 027 of 2021 pending hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
13.This court’s jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal is guided by order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that:
15.In view of the above, it is clear that the facts to be considered before granting an application for stay of execution pending appeal entails that; the applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, the application has been made without unreasonable delay and the provision of such security as the court may impose.
16.In determining the present application, I note that the appeal herein has been filed within reasonable time that is within 30 days from the date when the orders were issued as stipulated in the law. On the condition that the applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, Platt Ag JA (as he then was) stated in Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & another  eKLR, substantial loss is the corner stone of the jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal. It is virtually impossible for such an application to succeed if an applicant fails to demonstrate that he will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
17.The orders issued herein among others by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Nakuru BPRT No E027of 2021 is that the applicant pay rent from September 21, 2021 to the date on or before August 30, 2022 in default the landlord was at liberty to break in and take vacant possession. The applicant does not dispute being a tenant in the premises which is the subject of the said orders and has also not given a reason why he has not paid rent as was required of him as a tenant. Further, the applicant did not adduce any evidence or set out factual circumstances to demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss in the event stay is not granted.
19.In view of the above reasoning it is apparent that the respondent on the contrary would suffer loss should the applicant’s prayers are granted. The applicant despite being granted opportunity by the tribunal to pay the three months’ rent arrears failed to comply. The landlord must receive rent considering the contractual agreement with the applicant.
20.I think this is a case where the applicant simply is reneging on its obligation. The best it could do is to comply with the orders which in any case did not mean that it may not have any legal remedy against the respondent in the even that there was any such breach of the tenancy agreement.
21.In the premises, the application is disallowed with costs to the respondent.