Shah v Kitangila Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E030 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2608 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Machakos refused a Kenyan plaintiff more time to appeal, ruling that indecision and e-filing outages after the deadline were not acceptable explanations for the delay.
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 plaintiff has satisfied the legal threshold for granting leave to file a notice of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff satisfied the legal threshold for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time
The motion did not meet the legal threshold and was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Applying the Salat principles, the court found the motion itself was filed without inordinate delay, but the two explanations offered for the 20-day delay were unsatisfactory. The plaintiff's counsel had instructions to appeal at delivery of the ruling and knew of the 14-day deadline, so indecisiveness was not sufficient cause. The CTS outages occurred between 11 and 14 July 2025, after the 1 July 2025 deadline had expired, so there was no nexus. The defendants would suffer prejudice given the res judicata finding and the pending Court of Appeal appeal.
Whether this court had jurisdiction to entertain the extension-of-time motion
The court had jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act because no step had been taken at the Court of Appeal.
Relying on Trimborn, the court affirmed that a superior court of equal status with the High Court may extend time for a first notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, but only before any step is taken at the Court of Appeal. Since there was no evidence the plaintiff had taken any such step, the motion was properly before the court.
Legal principles established
#- A superior court's jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to extend time for filing a notice of appeal ceases once the intended appellant has taken any step at the Court of Appeal.
- Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's flow of discretionary favour.
- Delayed indecisiveness by a litigant does not amount to good and sufficient reason for delay in filing a notice of appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 22 July 2025 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs are awarded to the defendants.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 21 (extension of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal), invoked together with Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the ruling of Hon A.Y. Koross dated 17 June 2025, with timelines for filing the memorandum and record of appeal
The plaintiff's explanations for the delay (indecisiveness and CTS/e-filing outages) were not satisfactory, the delay was not adequately explained, and the defendants would suffer prejudice given the res judicata finding and a pending appeal in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E067 of 2023
Costs
Costs awarded to the defendants, the plaintiff being unsuccessful: 'It is trite law that costs follow the event, and costs are awarded to the defendants as the plaintifi is unsuccessful.'
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.
Utmost, this court concludes, finds, and holds that the motion does not meet the legal threshold to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the plaintifi. It also finds that the notice of motion dated 22 July 2025 is not merited. It is dismissed.
It is trite law that costs follow the event, and costs are awarded to the defendants as the plaintifi is unsuccessful. Orders accordingly.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s fiow of discretionary favour.
delayed indecisiveness does not amount to good and suficient reasons for the delay
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains apparent dating anomalies: the 1st defendant's grounds of opposition are dated 16 December 2025 and submissions dated 16 December 2025, 26 January 2026 and 5 February 2026, yet the 2nd defendant's replying affidavit is sworn 30 September 2025, and the motion is described as 'filed on 22 July 2025, which was slightly over a month since the impugned ruling' of 17 June 2025 - a gap of roughly five months, not one month, on the pleaded dates.
The name of the plaintiff is not disclosed in the judgment text; parties are referred to only by role, and the word 'plaintiff' is repeatedly misspelled as 'plaintifi'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shah v Kitangila Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E030 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2608 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2608/eng@2026-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.