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 29th October 2024, filed 4th November 2024· [2025] KEELC 7538 (KLR)

Makokha v Shisundi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7538 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 October 2025
ANA. Nyukuri
1,188 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed a request to appeal late because the applicant gave the court false information about when she learned of the judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega by Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2024 seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of the Kakamega Chief Magistrate's Court in MCLE No. 71 of 2017 delivered on 23rd April 2024, with costs provided for. She explained the delay on the basis that she was absent when judgment was delivered, only learned of it in September 2024 when her area Chief asked her to vacate the suit property, and that poor health and lack of funds prevented her from securing legal assistance, attaching treatment notes. The respondent opposed, producing the applicant's own lower-court application of 11th July 2024 seeking stay of the decree, in which the applicant deponed that she learned of the judgment from her advocate on 12th June 2024, and noting that the applicant had in June 2024 filed a stay application and a new adverse possession suit (Kakamega CMC ELC OS No. 164 of 2024) in person. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for extension of time. Applying Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's Salat principles, the court found the six-month delay inordinate and the explanation implausible and dishonest, holding that the applicant came to equity with unclean hands. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the threshold for extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The application failed: the delay of over six months was inordinate and the reasons offered (ignorance of the judgment, poor health, lack of funds) were implausible and contradicted by the applicant's own filings.

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat principles from the Supreme Court, which require a reasonable explanation for the delay, absence of prejudice, and no undue delay. The respondent showed the applicant had learned of the judgment by 12th June 2024 and was able to file two matters in June 2024, contradicting her claim of ignorance until September 2024 and of ill health. Deliberately giving incorrect information, the applicant did not come to equity with clean hands.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, requiring the applicant to explain the delay to the court's satisfaction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 29th October 2024 and filed on 4th November 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
On appeal from
Kakamega Chief Magistrate's Court
MCLE No. 71 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makokha v Shisundi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2024, filed 4th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7538/eng@2025-10-27

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