Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 15th September 2025 (arising from Tawa ELC No. E002 of 2023)· [2025] KEELC 8644 (KLR)

Kaki & another v Kiamba (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8644 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 December 2025
920 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a family extra time to appeal after the death of their litigant delayed the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court (Obaga J) determined a notice of motion dated 15th September 2025 in which the Applicants, administratrices of the estate of Charles Muthama Musau (deceased), sought extension of time to appeal against the judgment of Hon. Lawrence Kyasya Mwendwa, Principal Magistrate, delivered on 29th August 2024 in Tawa ELC No. E002 of 2023. The deceased, a defendant below, died in a road accident on 22nd September 2024, three days before an appeal was filed on his behalf on 25th September 2024. The Applicants' lawyer, unaware of the death, had been instructed to appeal before the demise; on learning of it, the appeal by the deceased was withdrawn. Because the deceased was polygamous, the family took considerable time, requiring the intervention of the Deputy County Commissioner Makueni, to agree on who would take out a limited grant, which issued on 19th August 2025. The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicants lacked capacity absent substitution before the lower court and the appeal, that there was no valid appeal to withdraw, that there was inordinate unexplained delay, and that prejudice would ensue. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others (2014) eKLR, the court held the delay was explained to its satisfaction, that the Applicants did not need to be substituted before the lower court - substitution before filing the appeal sufficed - and that the Respondent would suffer no prejudice. The application was allowed, with the appeal to be filed within 14 days, and costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants met the threshold for extension of time to appeal out of time

Holding

The application was allowed; the delay was sufficiently explained.

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat criteria. Instructions to appeal were given before the deceased's death; the appeal was filed within time, unaware of the death; the appeal was withdrawn on learning of the death. The delay stemmed from the polygamous family's difficulty agreeing on who to take out a limited grant, resolved only with the Deputy County Commissioner's intervention. The grant issued on 19th August 2025 and the application followed on 15th September 2025. No prejudice to the Respondent was found, and substitution before the lower court was not required.

p. 2
02

Whether the Applicants had capacity to bring the application absent substitution before the lower court

Holding

Capacity was established by the limited grant; substitution before the lower court was unnecessary.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the Applicants were neither substituted before the lower court nor before the appeal. The court rejected this, holding that the limited grant sufficed and that substitution before filing the appeal is what matters. The court found no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent and dismissed the abuse-of-process objection.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the court.
  • An applicant for extension of time need not be substituted before the lower court; what matters is substitution before filing the appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted and appeal to be filed within 14 days of 11th December 2025
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court, Tawa
Tawa ELC No. E002 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to extend time to file an appeal out of time

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaki & another v Kiamba (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8644 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 15th September 2025 (arising from Tawa ELC No. E002 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8644/eng@2025-12-11

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