Lokoret v Ngolepus (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale refused to extend time for a late land appeal and stay of execution because the applicant gave no good reason for the 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 applicant has given sufficient reasons to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 17/4/2025 pending the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file an appeal out of time
Refused - the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay and to show absence of prejudice to the respondent
The court considered the Wasike v Swala and Salat parameters: reasons for delay, promptness and prejudice. The judgment was delivered in the presence of both counsel and uploaded to the e-portal; the applicant did not controvert this and gave no substantiated reasons for the delay in filing the appeal or seeking a stay since 17/4/2025.
Stay of execution pending appeal
Refused - the order sought to be stayed was negative, no substantial loss was demonstrated and no security was offered
The trial court dismissed the applicant's suit; a negative order is incapable of being stayed. Further, the applicant alleged but did not demonstrate with tangible evidence how execution would cause substantial loss, and offered no security such as deposit of the title deed or consideration for due realization of the decree.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a matter of right but equitable relief granted to a deserving party who demonstrates diligence and gives a satisfactory explanation for the delay
- A negative order, such as the dismissal of a suit, is not capable of being stayed
- Written submissions cannot replace pleadings or amount to evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18/6/2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 20 of the Environment and Land Court Act (discretion to extend time and stay execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of 17/4/2025
The applicant did not substantiate reasonable reasons for the delay or lack of prejudice to the respondent
Stay of execution of the judgment of 17/4/2025 pending the intended appeal
The order sought to be stayed was a negative order incapable of being stayed, no substantial loss was demonstrated and no security was offered
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (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 upshot is that I find the application dated 18/6/2025 lacking merit. It is dismissed with costs.
A negative order is not capable of being stayed.
Written submissions cannot replace pleadings or amount to evidence.
It is not the business of the court to fill in gaps in the party’s pleadings.
The purpose of security, as held in Arun C. Sharma -vs- Ashana Raikundalia T/A A. Raikundalia & Co. Advocates & 4 others [2014] KEHC 1412 (KLR), is to guarantee the due performance of the decree as may be ultimately binding on the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or application file number of the matter
OCR typos in the judgment text (e.g. 'ofier' for 'offer', 'Suficient' for 'Sufficient', 'Ruing' for 'Ruling', 'dwelt' possibly for 'dealt')
The letter requesting proceedings is inconsistently dated - the affidavit describes a letter dated 20/5/2025, while the court notes that when the letter was filed is unverified
The deponent Emily Titika Ngolepus is referred to in places as 'him' despite being described as 'she'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lokoret v Ngolepus (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 18/6/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6202/eng@2025-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.