Rent already used and rent yet to arrive can present different problems when a court is preserving disputed income. An appeal about a Thika commercial complex illustrates why a successful stay application need not suspend every obligation in the challenged order.
In Geepak Limited and Parksons Packaging E.A. Ltd v Housing Finance Co. Limited and two others, Civil Appeal (Application) No. E601 of 2025, the Court of Appeal at Nairobi granted only part of the requested protection on 3 October 2025. This was an interim ruling pending an intended appeal, not a final allocation of ownership or rental income. (Paragraphs 6, 25-28 and dated closing.)
The sale and the rent orders were separate questions
The dispute followed a May 2021 auction of a commercial complex in Thika. The ruling records that Geepak was the highest bidder and paid the required deposit. Challenges to the sale and transfer followed. Earlier decisions about the auction appear in the ruling's background; they should not be mistaken for a new ownership determination in this application. (Paragraphs 1-3.)
In September 2023, the High Court directed rent into the applicants' account and required historical rent to offset their loan obligations. Kigio, the chargor, had not been joined in those proceedings and challenged the orders. On 24 July 2025, another High Court judge stayed the earlier orders and directed both previously collected and future rent into a joint interest-bearing escrow account. The applicants sought appellate intervention against that later ruling. (Paragraphs 4-6.)
An arguable challenge was only the first step
The Court of Appeal applied two requirements: an arguable appeal and a demonstration that refusing a stay would render it nugatory, or undermine its practical value. An arguable point did not have to be one certain to succeed. (Paragraphs 9, 17-22.)
The applicants questioned whether a judge deciding a stay application had effectively reviewed another judge's orders. They also challenged the treatment of mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage. The appellate court considered those serious questions deserving a full appeal; it did not finally decide that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paragraphs 10-11 and 18-20.)
The lender and chargor opposed relief. Their submissions questioned completion of the purchase and defended escrow as protection for the disputed income. Those were positions advanced in opposition, not a fresh appellate finding that the applicants had lost every interest in the property. (Paragraphs 13-16.)
Why past and future rent received different treatment
The court accepted the applicants' argument that recreating historical rent would cause irreversible prejudice. It recorded that those receipts had already gone towards loan repayments, utilities and maintenance. Compelling an equivalent fresh deposit would require new resources and impose a burden that success on appeal could not undo. This was the court's interim assessment, not a final audit approving every expenditure. (Paragraphs 12 and 23.)
Future collections presented the opposite problem. An escrow account would keep them intact, traceable and available for allocation after the appeals. The court therefore found the second requirement satisfied for the retrospective order, but not for the prospective safeguard. (Paragraphs 24-26.)
What the court actually ordered
The motion succeeded in part. The obligation to deposit rent collected from 4 September 2023 to 24 July 2025 was stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Future rent still had to enter a joint interest-bearing account in the names of the advocates for the applicants and Kigio, but that obligation was varied to begin on 3 October 2025, the date of this ruling. (Paragraph 27(a)-(b).)
The parties were directed to open the account forthwith and comply. The court expressly said the applicants need not deposit sums already received and applied before the ruling date. Costs of the application were to abide the outcome of the intended appeal, rather than being finally awarded at this stage. (Paragraph 27(c)-(e), paragraph 28 and closing.)
Questions for a property-income file
Which order governs each collection period? Can the accounts distinguish receipts already applied from money still held? Does the escrow mandate name the required advocates and reflect the correct start date? Those questions follow from this particular split order; a pending appeal alone does not answer them. Take the actual orders and rent records to a Kenyan advocate rather than infer unrestricted access to income from an auction result. (Paragraphs 23-27.)
This historical account is confined to the ruling as delivered. Later appeals, variations, compliance and present ownership or rent entitlement have not been independently verified for this article.
For context on the service, read how ArdhiScore works. This case note does not verify ownership, allocate rent or replace advice on the current court file.