Kericho Water & Sanitation Company Limited v Sambu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1539 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Kericho Environment and Land Court allowed a company to appeal late, but refused to halt execution of the debt because no appeal against the judgment itself existed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time
- 2.Whether an order of stay of execution of the judgement and decree issued in Kericho CM ELC Case no. E106 of 2023 should be granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 3.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file an appeal out of time
Leave granted; the fifteen-day delay was sufficiently explained by non-supply of the ruling and proceedings, the intended appeal was arguable, and the respondent showed no prejudice
The court applied Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the settled factors: length of delay, reasons for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent. The delay of fifteen days was not disputed to have been caused by non-supply of the ruling despite payment and follow-ups. A single arguable ground on burden of proof of service sufficed. The respondent did not submit on prejudice, so none was demonstrated.
Stay of execution of the 25th July 2024 decree pending intended appeal
Refused; no appeal had been filed against the judgment, and leave granted was only in respect of the 8th May 2025 ruling
Order 42 Rule 6(2) presupposes a filed and pending appeal. The applicant had been granted leave only to appeal against the ruling of 8th May 2025, not the judgment of 25th July 2024, so staying the judgment was out of the question, and no appeal existed from it. The court relied on Njoki & another v Goko holding that an application for stay does not lie where no appeal has been lodged.
Costs of the application
Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal, departing from the general rule that costs follow the event
The court noted the general rule under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event and a successful party ordinarily gets costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. Given that the application only partially succeeded and an appeal was to be filed, the court directed that costs abide the outcome of the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be admitted out of time where the applicant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, considering the length of and reasons for the delay, chances of success and prejudice to the respondent
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's flow of discretionary favour
Court orders
#- 1.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to lodge an appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 8th May, 2025 in Kericho CM ELC Case No. E106 of 2023
- 2.The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Kericho
- Kericho Magistrate Court MC ELC No. E106 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 13, 16A and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 22 Rule 22, Order 40 Rules 1 & 4, Order 42 Rule 5 & Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree in Kericho Magistrate Court MC ELC No. E106 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
No appeal against the 25th July 2024 judgment had been filed, and leave granted related only to the 8th May 2025 ruling; a stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) presupposes a pending appeal
Costs
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a. Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to lodge an appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 8th May, 2025 in Kericho CM ELC Case No. E106 of 2023.
b. The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
I find that the application dated 19th June, 2025 partially succeeds and I order as follows;
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the Court's fiow of discretionary favour.
My view is that this single ground makes the intended Appeal arguable.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives two inconsistent case numbers for the same trial matter - Kericho Magistrate Court MC ELC No. E106 of 2023 and Kericho CM ELC Case No. E106 of 2023 - and states the application was 'reserved for ruling' on 3rd December, 2025 though dated 2025 in an application of 19th June 2025; the underlying suit is described as 'Kericho CM ELC Case No. 106 of 2023 Thomas Kimagut Sambu v Kericho Water & Sanitation Company Limited'
The Applicant's submissions cite a decretal sum of Kshs. 2,467,028 whereas the judgment awarded Kshs. 2,053,139
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kericho Water & Sanitation Company Limited v Sambu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1539 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kericho CM ELC Case No. E106 of 2023 (Ruling on Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1539/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.