Wambugu v Lugaba (Environment and Land Appeal E212 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3574 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 applicant is deserving of orders of leave to file the appeal out of time
- 2.Whether orders of stay of execution of the judgment should be granted
- 3.Costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Leave to appeal out of time under Section 79G CPA
Refused - the applicant did not demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay
The judgment was delivered on 31/10/24, so the appeal was due by 30/11/24. The applicant only filed a draft memorandum on 9/12/24. Although she attributed the delay to non-upload of the judgment to the CTS portal and an unsigned copy obtained on 14/11/24, she did not explain the further two-week delay to 30/11/24 nor annex correspondence with the registry, so the Salat criteria were not satisfied.
Stay of execution pending appeal
Not determined - moot given the refusal of extension of time
Having declined to enlarge time for filing the appeal, the court found no necessity to address stay of execution, since there was no properly admitted appeal to protect.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy requiring a clear and credible explanation of the delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9/12/2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court, Environment and Land Court
- MCELC No. E254 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act (leave to appeal out of time and enlargement of time); appellate jurisdiction from the subordinate court
Relief refused
#Leave to file appeal out of time
Applicant failed to give a cogent explanation for the delay; the two weeks from 14/11/24 to 30/11/24 were unexplained
Stay of execution of the judgment in MCELC No. E254 of 2023
Not determined as moot once extension of time was refused
Costs
Dismissed with costs 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.
The application is unmerited. It is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
the applicant has not satisfied the Court with a cogent explanation as to the delay
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
Issues in the judgment
#Names of the parties (other than the applicant) are not stated in the judgment text; the respondent is referenced only by role
Case number of the present application before the ELC is not stated in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambugu v Lugaba (Environment and Land Appeal E212 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3574 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in excerpt (application dated 9/12/2024; appeal from MCELC No. E254 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3574/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.