Republic v National Land Commission & 9 others; Wilson & 3 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4160 (KLR)

The court applied Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Salat principles on extension of time. Counsel had written follow-up letters to the Court of Appeal seeking updates on the judgment and only learned of its delivery on 27th November 2025 from opposing counsel. The substantive motion was filed on 2nd December 2025, which the court found was not an inordinate delay, and counsel acted promptly. The delay was attributable to lack of knowledge of the judgment's delivery, not any fault of the applicants.

The court relied on the Turea Limited decision, holding that an advocate may swear an affidavit on formal or non-contentious matters of fact within his knowledge under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Advocates Practice Rules. The affidavit here deposed to the letters Counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar and his follow-up on the judgment, matters within his personal knowledge, so the objection failed.

Having allowed the Ex parte Applicants' application for extension of time, the court reasoned that the stay granted by the Court of Appeal should stand so that the applicants' substantive judicial review motion could be heard on the merits and the Court of Appeal's orders would not be rendered futile. However, the court balanced the prejudice to the Interested Parties by awarding them the costs of defending the extension application, noting the Court of Appeal had already awarded the applicants the costs of the appeal and the leave application.