Jimmy & 3 others v Kiprono & 2 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3665 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to extend the time to appeal because the applicant could not explain a nine-month delay.
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 1st Applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time
- 2.Whether there exists a reason for the delay in filing the appeal
- 3.Whether the matter raises issues of public importance
- 4.Whether the Respondents will suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
- 5.Whether status quo orders should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether good and sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
No; the delay of approximately nine months was unexplained and the extension of time application failed
The BPRT delivered its decision on 22nd March 2024, giving the 1st Applicant thirty days to appeal. Instead, he filed a Memorandum of Appeal without leave, which was struck out on 18th December 2024. Approximately nine months elapsed without explanation. Applying the Salat principles, an applicant must lay a basis for extension and explain the delay; failure to do so disentitles the applicant to the discretionary relief.
Whether the earlier appeal having been struck out for want of leave precludes relief
The earlier appeal was struck out with costs for having been filed without leave, leaving extension of time as the only route, which was refused
The court recorded that the 1st Applicant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th May 2024 without leave of the court; a preliminary objection by the 4th Respondent succeeded and the appeal was struck out with costs on 18th December 2024. The present application was thus the Applicant's attempt to regularise the position, which failed for want of an explanation for the delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and an applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court
- Without a reasonable explanation for delay, the court will not exercise its discretion to enlarge time
Court orders
#- 1.The application for orders of extension of time is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs not expressly stated in the extract beyond the application's prayer that costs abide the outcome
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion to enlarge time under the proviso to Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Leave to file appeal out of time
Delay of approximately nine months unexplained; no reasonable explanation offered
Status quo orders pending appeal
Fell with the dismissal of the extension of time application
Costs
Not expressly ordered in the extract; the court only held that the application 'fails in its entirety'
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.
Consequently, the application for orders of extension of time fails in its entirety. It is so ordered.
It is trite that this court has power to enlarge time but, in the absence, of reasonable explanation as to the delay, I find that the 1st Applicant is not deserving of this courts exercise of discretion in his favour.
Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and suficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment extract does not state the case number of the application before the court
The 3rd Respondent's name discrepancy was raised but the parties' heading in the extract does not clarify it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jimmy & 3 others v Kiprono & 2 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3665 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (ELC Nakuru application dated 19th December, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3665/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.