Kintet & another v Ole Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal Miscellaneous E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4001 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Narok refused to let two landowners file an appeal late, and refused to protect their plots, because they sat out two existing appeals.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
The Applicants did not establish sufficient cause; the delay was inordinate and they failed to participate in two existing appeals from the same judgment.
The court applied the Salat and Mutiso principles. Judgment was delivered on 13th May 2025; the earlier appeal was struck out on 27th November 2025 after a preliminary objection was upheld. There were already two consolidated appeals from the same judgment (ELCA E010 of 2025 and E008 of 2025) in which the Applicants could have participated but did not. The draft memorandum raised the same issues as those appeals, so the application was overtaken by events.
Temporary injunction pending intended appeal
Refused because no leave to appeal out of time was granted and hence no appeal is pending or intended.
Preservatory orders pending appeal presuppose a subsisting or competent appeal. Having disallowed the prayer for extension of time, the court held there was no appeal pending or intended, and therefore no basis for temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from dealing with Plot Nos. 307 and 308 Block 4, Narok Town.
Costs
Costs to the Respondents as successful litigants.
The court found that the Respondents were the successful litigants and were entitled to the costs of the application, applying the principle that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not available as of right, granted upon consideration of the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent and whether the application was brought without undue delay.
- A litigant who fails to participate in already-existing appeals from the same judgment cannot claim sufficient cause for extension of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for leave to file and serve the appeal out of time is disallowed.
- 2.The prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed.
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondents.
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Narok
- Narok CMCC No. 57 of 2013 (consolidated with Narok CMCC No. 200 of 2013)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kintet & another v Ole Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal Miscellaneous E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2025 in Narok Environment and Land Appeal (E008 of 2025 consolidated matters). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4001/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.