Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2024)· [2025] KEELC 4032 (KLR)

Kariuki v Gathige (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E052 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4032 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
21 May 2025
2,315 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner got permission to appeal late, and her eviction is on hold until that appeal is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru on a Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2024 by Anastacia Wairimu Kariuki seeking leave to appeal out of time, a stay of proceedings in the Respondent's miscellaneous application for her eviction from parcel Solai/Nyakinyua/Kimunya Farm/962, and a stay of execution of a ruling delivered on 26th September 2024 by Hon. L. Akoth, SRM, in Nakuru CM ELC No E108 of 2022, which dismissed her application to review or set aside an ex-parte judgment. She attributed the delay to a change of advocates. The Respondent opposed the application, contending it failed to identify the decision appealed against, that no security for due performance had been offered, and that the stay of execution prayer had been overtaken by events; the Applicant addressed this in a supplementary affidavit. The court framed three issues. Relying on Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Salat and Edith Gichungu Koine authorities, the court held the delay was explained and granted leave to appeal out of time, conditioned on filing the memorandum of appeal within 30 days. Applying Order 42 Rule 6 and the Butt principles, and citing Samvir Trustees on substantial loss and Arun C. Sharma on security, the court found the pending eviction would render the intended appeal nugatory and granted a stay of execution of the 26th September 2024 ruling pending the appeal, holding that a separate stay of proceedings was unnecessary once stay of execution was in place. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The application substantially succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Leave to appeal out of time under Section 79G

Holding

Leave granted; the change of advocates explained the delay and the application was filed timeously after the impugned ruling

Reasoning

The decision to extend time is discretionary and case-specific. The Applicant explained that the delay arose from engaging new advocates who had to peruse the file. The application dated 2nd December 2024 followed shortly after the ruling of 26th September 2024. In the interest of justice and access to justice, the court exercised its discretion in the Applicant's favour, subject to a 30-day limit.

p. 4
02

Stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Stay of execution of the 26th September 2024 ruling granted pending the intended appeal

Reasoning

Applying Order 42 Rule 6 and the Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal principles, the court found the eviction application, if allowed to proceed, would render the intended appeal nugatory. A stay of execution covers the eviction process as part of execution, so no separate stay of proceedings was necessary. Substantial loss was assessed against the danger of imminent eviction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy available to a deserving party, requiring an explanation of the delay and absence of prejudice to the respondent
  • Stay of execution preserves the substratum of the suit so the appeal is not rendered nugatory, and encompasses the eviction process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Obura Mbeche & Co Advocates to file an appeal out of time on behalf of the Applicant
  2. 2.Applicant to file an Appeal within 30 days failing which the order lapses
  3. 3.Stay of execution of the ruling dated 26th September 2024 granted pending the hearing of the intended appeal
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLI Rule 4(2)(b)

Cases cited (13)

  • Charles N. Ngugi v ASL Credit Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Githau v Kagiri & Another
    (Civil Appeal No 314 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 6320 (KLR)
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] eKLR
  • Gulf Timber & Hardware Supplies Limited v Ngaruiya & 5 others
    (Civil Appeal E203 of 2021) [2022] KECA 87 (KLR)
  • William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Muslims for Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & another
    [1986] eKLR
  • Global Tours & Travels Limited
    Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No 43 of 2000
  • David Morton Silverstein v Atsango Chesoni
    [2002] eKLR
  • Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei
    [2019] eKLR
  • Edith Gichungu Koine v Stephen Njagi Thoithi
    [2014] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustees Ltd v Guardian Bank Ltd
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No. 795 of 1997
  • Arun C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia & Co. Advocates & Others
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru (Nakuru CM ELC No E108 of 2022)
Nakuru CM ELC No E108 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 79G and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kariuki v Gathige (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E052 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4032 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4032/eng@2025-05-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.