Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNakuru CM ELC No. 1 of 2000 (appeal therein; application dated 11th August 2025)· [2025] KEELC 6245 (KLR)

Full Gospel Churches of Kenya v Kamau & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6245 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2025
AOA O Ombwayo
742 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to kill an old land appeal because missing typed proceedings—not the appellant—caused the delay, giving 60 days to file.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru on a notice of motion dated 11th August 2025 by Paul Ndungu Kiiru, the respondent in an appeal filed by the Full Gospel Churches of Kenya. The applicant sought dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, arguing that although a Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 13th February 2024 challenging the Chief Magistrate's judgment of 23rd March 2023 in Nakuru CM ELC No. 1 of 2000, no Record of Appeal had been filed and no extension of time or explanation for the delay had been tendered, causing him prejudice as the holder of a valid judgment. The appellant, through the replying affidavit of Francis Kimathi Macharia, explained that leave was granted on 5th February 2024 by L.A. Omolo (J) with ten days to file the memorandum, which was done timeously; that typed proceedings had been applied for and paid for; and that the registrar's typing pool was congested, with monthly follow-ups made. A.O. Ombwayo (J) held that the failure to file the record within the prescribed time could not be visited upon the appellant because the typed proceedings requested by letter of 27th March 2025 had not been availed, nor had the lower court file been supplied to the court as required by law. Rather than dismissing the appeal, the court granted the appellant 60 days to file and serve a record of appeal, failing which the appeal would stand deemed dismissed for want of prosecution. No express costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

Dismissal was refused; the appellant was granted 60 days to file and serve the record of appeal, failing which the appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution

Reasoning

The court found that the appellant had requested typed proceedings by letter of 27th March 2025 and that these had not been supplied. The lower court file had also not been availed to the high court as required. Since preparation of the record depended on materials the court itself had not provided, the delay could not be blamed on the appellant, and conditional timelines better served substantive justice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot be penalised for failure to file a record of appeal where the typed proceedings and lower court file have not been availed by the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellant is given 60 days to file and serve a record of appeal
  2. 2.Failure to file the record of appeal within 60 days shall mean the appeal is deemed dismissed for want of prosecution
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Nakuru
Nakuru CM ELC No. 1 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of court process

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Full Gospel Churches of Kenya v Kamau & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru CM ELC No. 1 of 2000 (appeal therein; application dated 11th August 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6245/eng@2025-09-25

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