Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 2/03/2022 (arising from Co-operative Tribunal Case No. 164 of 2021)· [2025] KEELC 6016 (KLR)

Muka Mukuu Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Somba & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6016 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 September 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
1,481 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a request for more time to appeal because the applicant couldn't prove why the appeal was late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Koross J) on a notice of motion dated 2/03/2022 by the applicant, Peter Ngui Mulili, seeking extension of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal out of time against the decision in Co-operative Tribunal Case No. 164 of 2021 delivered on 25/11/2021, and a stay of those tribunal proceedings pending the intended appeal. The applicant attributed the delay to the tribunal's failure to avail the certified ruling and to challenges with the new electronic filing system. The 1st respondent opposed, contending that no plausible reasons for the delay were advanced, the correspondence to the tribunal was unsigned and unstamped, and that extension of time is an equitable remedy. Applying Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, and the principles in Salat v IEBC, the court found a delay of close to four months unexplained. The letters to the tribunal lacked receiving stamps, no receipt for payment of the ruling was produced, the ruling had been certified by 21/12/2021, and counsel had been present at delivery of the ruling and sought leave to appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to justify the exercise of discretion in its favour and dismissed the entire motion with costs to the 1st respondent, marking the file closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an extension of time to appeal out of time should be granted under Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

Refused. The applicant failed to satisfactorily explain a delay of close to 4 months; the letters to the tribunal lacked receiving stamps, no receipt for payment of the ruling was presented, and no specific e-filing challenges were expounded.

Reasoning

Applying the Salat principles, the court found the delay unexplained. The certified ruling was available by 21/12/2021 yet the motion came 3 months later. Counsel was present at delivery of the ruling and sought leave to appeal, so unavailability of the ruling did not prevent filing. Discretion was therefore not justified.

p. 4
02

Whether the tribunal proceedings should be stayed pending the intended appeal

Holding

The motion, including the stay prayer, was dismissed with costs since the extension of time foundation failed.

Reasoning

Having found no basis to enlarge time, there was no viable intended appeal to protect; the court dismissed the whole notice of motion and marked the file closed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
  • A party who attributes delay to a tribunal or registry must produce tangible evidence, such as stamped correspondence and receipts, to support that assertion.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 2/03/2022 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
  2. 2.The file is effectively marked as closed.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 95
  • Co-operative Societies ActSection 81
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 3

Cases cited (1)

  • Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] KESC 12 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act; Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muka Mukuu Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Somba & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6016 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 2/03/2022 (arising from Co-operative Tribunal Case No. 164 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6016/eng@2025-09-16

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