Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in extract· [2025] KEELC 8137 (KLR)

Nyamboga v Kenya Industrial Estates Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8137 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 November 2025
DOD. O. Ohungo
1,690 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Nyamira allowed an appeal filed two weeks late because the lawyer's illness caused the delay, but refused to halt the lower court's orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By Notice of Motion dated 7th April 2025, the Applicant sought stay of orders, leave to appeal out of time against a ruling of the Subordinate Court delivered on 19th February 2025 in Nyamira MCELC No. E022 of 2021 (Hon. C I Agutu, SRM), and costs. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant's counsel, Stacy Nyaboke Bosire, who explained that she fell ill and underwent surgery on 10th March 2025, within the 30-day window for appealing under Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011. The First Respondent opposed the application, contending that the supporting affidavit was fatally defective under Rule 9 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules, that the Applicant was indolent, and that no substantial loss or security for stay had been demonstrated, particularly since the titles to West Mugirango/Nyamaiya/5748 and 5749 had been cancelled and the mother title and charge reinstated. The court applied the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, holding that extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy. It found counsel's affidavit proper because it deposed to facts peculiarly within her knowledge. The delay of about two weeks was reasonably explained by counsel's medical note showing discharge on 14th March 2025 and two weeks' sick off, with the application filed about a week after resumption. No prejudice beyond compensable costs was shown. Leave to appeal out of time was granted, the memorandum of appeal was to be filed and served within seven days, and costs of the application were to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an advocate can swear a supporting affidavit on behalf of a client on contested facts

Holding

The objection fails where the affidavit deposes to facts peculiarly within the advocate's knowledge, here her illness and surgery.

Reasoning

The First Respondent argued Rule 9 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules rendered the application fatally defective. The court acknowledged the general rule but held that the illness and surgery of counsel were facts only she could depone to, were uncontested, and were supported by a medical note, so no defect arose.

p. 3
02

Whether sufficient cause was shown to admit an appeal out of time

Holding

A delay of about two weeks was reasonably explained by counsel's illness, surgery and two weeks' sick leave; no prejudice was demonstrated.

Reasoning

Applying the Salat principles under Section 16A(2) of the ELC Act, the court found the appeal deadline of 21st March 2025 fell within counsel's sick-off period ending after 14th March 2025 plus two weeks; the application was filed about a week after resumption, and the respondents showed no compensable prejudice.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate may properly swear a supporting affidavit on facts peculiarly within her own knowledge, such as her illness, notwithstanding the general rule against advocates swearing affidavits on contested facts.
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy governed by the Salat principles, requiring sufficient explanation of delay and absence of prejudice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave is granted to the Applicant to appeal out of time against the ruling and order of the Subordinate Court made on 19th February 2025 in Nyamira MCELC No. E022 of 2021
  2. 2.The Memorandum of Appeal be filed and served within 7 (seven) days from the date of delivery of this ruling
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Subordinate Court (Chief Magistrate's Court, Nyamira)
Nyamira MCELC No. E022 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16A(1) and 16A(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyamboga v Kenya Industrial Estates Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8137/eng@2025-11-26

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