Nyakinyua Mwihangiri Mwimuto Co. Ltd v Thairu & another (Sued as Legal Administrators of the Estate of the Late Priscillah Wangari Thairu) (Environment and Land Case 65 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 364 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court gave a land company extra time to appeal and stopped eviction because it only received the written judgment two years after the ruling.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to appeal out of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Extension granted because the applicant had good and sufficient cause: the file was pending before the JSC and the written judgment was only availed on 5th August 2025, with the application filed timeously on 15th August 2025
The court applied the Salat principles: extension of time is discretionary and requires a reasonable explanation for delay, no prejudice, and no undue delay. The record showed the file was among those pending before the Judicial Service Commission over complaints on pending judgments, and the judgment was only uploaded on the CTS on 5th August 2025. The application dated 15th August 2025 was therefore timeous and the delay reasonably explained.
Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Stay granted because the draft appeal raises triable issues, the applicant made the application without unreasonable delay, and execution would likely cause irreparable loss through eviction of members in occupation, not compensable by damages
The court applied the Butt and James Wangalwa principles on substantial loss. Members of the plaintiff were in possession and occupation of portions of the suit land with homes and developments; execution would result in eviction and demolition causing irreparable loss not compensable by damages. The judgment was uploaded on 5th August 2025 and the application filed on 15th August 2025 showed no unreasonable delay. The draft memorandum of appeal was found arguable.
Discrepancy between the virtual judgment and the written judgment
Noted as the applicant's explanation, but no finding made on the substance of the virtual judgment; the delay analysis proceeded on the written judgment of 19th May 2023
The applicant claimed the judgment was virtually delivered in its favour on 19th May 2023 and annexed an audio recording and certificate of electronic evidence. The respondent denied any virtual judgment, insisting only the written judgment exists. The court did not resolve the discrepancy substantively; it relied on the fact that the written judgment dismissed the plaintiff's case and allowed the counter-claim, and that the applicant lacked access to it.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy, not a right, requiring a reasonable explanation for the delay, no prejudice to the respondent, and an application brought without undue delay
- Where a party did not have access to the written judgment, the delay in filing an appeal is reasonably explained
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to the Plaintiff/Applicant to file the intended appeal out of time against the judgment of 19th May 2023 (prayer allowed on sufficient reasons for the delay)
- 2.Stay of execution of the judgment of the court delivered on 19th May 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal granted
- 3.Application allowed entirely in terms of prayers No 3 and 4
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79G) and Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (Order 9 Rule 9, Order 42 Rule 6(2)); the court expressly held it is 'not bound by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, but by the Civil Procedure Act and Rules 2010'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyakinyua Mwihangiri Mwimuto Co. Ltd v Thairu & another (Sued as Legal Administrators of the Estate of the Late Priscillah Wangari Thairu) (Environment and Land Case 65 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment excerpt (Narok ELC file, suit land Cis Mara/Nkoben/56). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/364/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.