Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedCivil Application dated 14th April 2025 (arising from Appeal filed against Machakos CM.ELC Case No. 67 of 2020)· [2026] KEELC 4032 (KLR)

Ndeto v Kyalo (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4032 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 July 2026
1,341 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an appeal filed 18 months late without permission, confirming strict deadlines apply.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Matheka J) on a notice of motion dated 14th April 2025 brought under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant, Daniel Kiendi Kyalo (the Respondent in the appeal), sought stay of proceedings in Machakos MC.ELC No. 67 of 2020, dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction (it having been filed in the High Court rather than the Environment and Land Court), and dismissal of the appeal for having been filed out of time and without leave under section 79G. The trial court's judgment had been delivered on 9th November 2023 but the memorandum of appeal was filed on 2nd May 2025, roughly eighteen months later, and after an application for review was dismissed. The Appellant attributed the wrong forum to a procedural mistake and invited the court to grant leave. The court found the jurisdiction objection moot because on 29th May 2025 the parties' advocates by consent transferred the matter to the Environment and Land Court. On limitation, the court held section 79G mandatory, that no leave had been sought or obtained, and that an appellant cannot file out of time and seek leave retrospectively. Adopting the principles in Salat and Koine, the court found the extension principles unsatisfied and struck out the appeal with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal offended section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

Yes. The appeal was filed eighteen months after judgment, outside the thirty-day period, and no leave was sought or obtained; the appeal was struck out.

Reasoning

Section 79G mandates that appeals from subordinate courts be filed within thirty days, with a proviso permitting admission out of time where the appellant shows good and sufficient cause. The judgment was delivered on 9th November 2023 and the memorandum of appeal filed on 2nd May 2025. No leave was sought before or at filing, and the appellant could not seek leave retrospectively once the defect was raised. The guidelines in Salat and Koine on extension of time were not satisfied.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction having been filed in the High Court

Holding

The issue became moot because the parties by consent transferred the matter to the Environment and Land Court on 29th May 2025.

Reasoning

The applicant argued that the appeal belonged to the Environment and Land Court under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The court perused the record and found that on 29th May 2025 counsel for both parties consented to transfer the matter to the Environment and Land Court, rendering the forum objection academic. The court therefore determined the application solely on the limitation ground.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court must be filed within thirty days of the decree or order appealed against, and where it is not, the appellant must obtain leave of the court; an appeal cannot be filed out of time and leave sought retrospectively.
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available at the court's discretion to a deserving party who explains the delay, considering the period and reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the overriding objective.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal filed out of time and without leave of the court is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (3)

  • Mugo & Others vs Wanjiru & Another
    (1970) EA 482
  • Edith Gichungu Koine vs Stephen Njagi Thoithi
    (2014) eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    (2013) eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Machakos
CM.ELC Case No. 67 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndeto v Kyalo (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4032 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application dated 14th April 2025 (arising from Appeal filed against Machakos CM.ELC Case No. 67 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4032/eng@2026-07-02

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