Kabuu v Gacheche (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E066 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3802 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant waited eight months without explanation, so the judgment holder can now proceed with execution.
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 application dated 27th November 2025 is merited (extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal out of time and stay of execution/maintenance of status quo)
- 2.Who ought to pay the costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for extension of time to appeal out of time
The application fails; there was no proper explanation for the delay from March 2025 to November 2025, and blaming erstwhile advocates does not satisfy the Salat principles
Applying the Salat principles as reiterated in Mbarire v Kenya Airways, the court found the applicant bore the burden of explaining the delay. Judgment was delivered on 12 March 2025, instructions to appeal were given on 5 November 2025, and the applicant offered no account of the intervening eight months apart from blaming his former advocates, who were not heard. The plea of mental, physical and economic shock was rejected as no more than filing a Memorandum of Appeal was required.
Whether a valid appeal or arguable grounds exist before the court
There is no appeal before the court; only a Notice of Appeal was filed and no draft Memorandum of Appeal exhibited, so arguable grounds cannot be assessed
The court held that an appeal from the subordinate court to the ELC requires a Memorandum of Appeal with grounds lodged within 30 days. Only a Notice of Appeal was filed and none was lodged even at the hearing. The court could not decipher arguable grounds from a mere Notice of Appeal, and distinguished Mwangi v Gachago, where a Memorandum had apparently been lodged. Consequently there was no properly or even improperly filed appeal.
Whether the stay of execution/status quo orders could be granted
The stay/status quo prayers fail as they stand or fall with the extension-of-time prayer, and the respondent would be greatly prejudiced
Counsel for the respondent had argued that a stay predicated on extension of time stands or falls with it. The court found extension must be declined, and further that granting the orders would greatly prejudice the respondent who had been waiting to enjoy the fruits of her judgment, execution proceedings having commenced by Notice to Show Cause. The status quo prayer therefore could not be granted.
Proper foundation of the Notice of Motion
The Notice of Motion was not brought under any procedural law, so the provisions under which the orders were sought could not be known
As a preliminary point, the court noted that the application cited no statute or rule, despite counsel's reliance on Order 42 Rule 6 in submissions. This procedural deficiency was noted but treated alongside the substantive failures of the application.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction
- An appeal from a subordinate court to the ELC is instituted by lodging a Memorandum of Appeal within 30 days; a Notice of Appeal is superfluous and is not the requisite document
- Blaming an erstwhile advocate, without more, is not a sufficient or cogent reason to justify extension of time
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27th November 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrates Court at Mpeketoni
- Mpeketoni ELC Case No. E016 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion to extend time to appeal to the Environment and Land Court from a subordinate court (application not brought under any specified procedural provision)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal out of time
Inordinate, unexplained delay of about eight months blamed on erstwhile advocates, and no Memorandum of Appeal lodged or exhibited
Deeming of the Notice of Appeal as properly served
A Notice of Appeal is not the requisite document for lodging an appeal from the lower court to the ELC and no arguable grounds could be deciphered from it
Order of status quo pending hearing and determination of the appeal
It is a consequence of the failure of the extension-of-time prayer; no valid appeal exists
Costs
The application dated 27th November 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
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;
The application dated 27th November 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
There is thus not any appeal, even an improperly filed one, before me. There is no draft Memorandum of Appeal exhibited to show the proposed appeal grounds.
The applicant simply heaps blame on his erstwhile advocates. His erstwhile advocates are not present to defend themselves.
The consequence of the foregoing findings regarding extension of time to appeal is that the prayer seeking the maintenance of status quo can not be granted.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states instructions to appeal were given on 5/11/2025 and the court refers to an 8-month inert period, yet also describes a 7-month slumber period alleged by the respondent; the supporting affidavit is undated and application filing dates are inconsistently stated (8th December 2025 in submissions vs 27th November 2025 on the motion)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kabuu v Gacheche (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E066 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Mpeketoni ELC Case No. E016 of 2021 (application dated 27th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3802/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.