Mukuna (As the Person Representative of the Estate of the Late Alice Kasikwa) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 7 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3066 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to forgive a five-month delay in challenging a land decision, because the applicant clearly knew about the case all along.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court could consider extension of time under Rule 6 of the Koome Rules after Rule 6 had been suspended
The court considered the application in the interest of justice because the pleadings were prepared, dated and signed before the suspension of Rule 6
The originating summons was dated 28th March 2025 and filed 3rd April 2025, one day after Justice Mwamuye suspended Rules 5, 6, 7, 11(4), 27(3) and 33 in Katiba Institute's petition. The court held the applicant's counsel may not have been aware of the suspension, and since the pleadings predated it, decided to consider extension of time in the interest of justice rather than strike the application down for invoking a suspended rule.
Whether the Applicant was ignorant of the proceedings and decision of the Minister
The Applicant's claim of ignorance was disbelieved; affidavit evidence showed family members knew of and agreed to the appeal and the sharing of the suit property
The Applicant was present at the hearing on 22nd August 2024. Affidavits by his sisters and brother, and by family representatives of the five houses, showed knowledge of and agreement to the appeal and sharing. Attempts to denounce the appeal by King'oo Mukuna and Agness Ngina Kimilu, whose very existence in the family was contradicted by the area chief's letter, were treated as a scheme. Delay was 5 months and 5 days.
Whether extension of time should be granted
Extension refused; the applicant had knowledge, delay was unexplained, and granting extension would prejudice the Interested Parties because the suit property was never distributed by the late Mukuna Kakui
Applying Rule 6(2) and (3), the court weighed the delay, the reasons and hardship to the respondents. The affidavit evidence showed the Applicant knew of the appeal; the hardbook writings showed plot No. 1 at Uvete was not distributed by the deceased, so allowing the late challenge would prejudice the Interested Parties. Extension was declined and, consequently, the entire application was dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court may consider the merits of extension of time despite suspension of the empowering rule where pleadings were prepared before the suspension, in the interest of justice
- Extension of time under Rule 6(2) requires proof that the applicant was prevented through fraud or misrepresentation, or could not despite diligence, have known of the decision, and prejudice to the respondent may defeat extension
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents and the Interested Parties
- On appeal from
- Adjudication Land Appeal to the Minister (decision under challenge, not an appeal before this court)
- 256 of 1990
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 6(1), (2) and (3) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 (enacted pursuant to Section 10(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukuna (As the Person Representative of the Estate of the Late Alice Kasikwa) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 7 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3066 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 28th March, 2025 (Adjudication Land Appeal to the Minister Case Number 256 of 1990 referred to). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3066/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.