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 29/08/2025 (arising from Siakago MCELC Case No. E047 of 2023)· [2026] KEELC 1805 (KLR)

Ndwiga & 2 others v Kariuki & 5 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1805 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 March 2026
ECE.C CHERONO
2,091 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Embu Environment and Land Court refused to extend time to appeal because the applicants couldn't credibly explain why they missed the 30-day deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants moved the Environment and Land Court at Embu by Notice of Motion dated 29/08/2025 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of Hon. S.K Ngii in Siakago MCELC Case No. E047 of 2023 delivered on 10/07/2025. They attributed the failure to appeal within the statutory thirty days to their inability to obtain certified copies of the proceedings, judgment and decree. The Respondents, in a replying affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent, Nicholas Kariuki, countered that the judgment was uploaded to the electronic filing portal on 11/07/2025 and an amended version emailed to the Applicants' advocates on 21/07/2025, that the delay of about nineteen days was unexplained, and that the intended appeal - which concerned elections and membership of Genesis (K) CBO rather than land or environment - was not arguable. The court framed a single issue: whether sufficient cause had been established to warrant extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. Applying the principles in the Salat case, the court held the delay of approximately nineteen days was not inordinate but that the explanation offered was unsatisfactory, since certified proceedings are not a prerequisite for lodging a memorandum of appeal and the Applicants did not controvert the Respondents' evidence of access to the judgment. The court found it unnecessary to determine arguability, holding that an arguable appeal alone would not justify extension where the delay is unexplained. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants established sufficient cause under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time

Holding

The application failed: the explanation of about nineteen days' delay - non-supply of certified proceedings, judgment and decree - was unsatisfactory because the judgment was accessible via the electronic filing portal from 11/07/2025 and was emailed to counsel, and the Applicants did not controvert this evidence.

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat principles: extension of time is discretionary and equitable, and the applicant must explain the delay to the court's satisfaction. The Respondents demonstrated the judgment was available to the Applicants shortly after delivery through the e-filing system and by email. An arguable appeal alone would not suffice where the delay is unexplained. In the absence of a satisfactory and plausible explanation, good and sufficient cause was not established.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
  • The absence of certified proceedings or decree does not, of itself, prevent a party from lodging an appeal within time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 29/08/2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 6
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 16A

Cases cited (5)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Stecol Corporation Limited versus Susan Awuor Mudemb
    (2021) eKLR
  • Almas Hauliers Ltd versus Abdulnasir Abukar Hassan
    (2017) eKLR
  • Ndambuki and Another versus E-Gap Solutions Limited
    (2025) KEHC 3855 (KLR)
  • Wambui versus Ngethe
    (2023) KEHC 18414 (KLR)
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (Siakago)
Siakago MCELC Case No. E047 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndwiga & 2 others v Kariuki & 5 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1805 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 29/08/2025 (arising from Siakago MCELC Case No. E047 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1805/eng@2026-03-19

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