Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC LMISC. No. E028 of 2026· [2026] KEELC 4384 (KLR)

Parsayiato v District Land Registrar Kajiado Central (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4384 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 July 2026
JOJUDY OMANGE
860 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused a landowner permission to appeal a 2014 boundary decision, ruling a twelve-year delay lacked adequate explanation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado by Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2026 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against a decision of the Land Registrar dated 26th September 2014 arising from a boundary dispute over parcels Kajiado/Kaputiei North/830, 831 and 840. He explained that after the Registrar's decision he instructed his then advocate to challenge it through Machakos ELC No. 152 of 2014, later transferred to Kajiado as ELC No. 421 of 2017, which was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2018. He claimed he was unaware of that suit's status, and a later suit, Kajiado ELC No. E015 of 2021, was struck out as res judicata. The Respondent filed no response and no submissions were on record. The court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant had established a case warranting enlargement of time. Applying Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rule 5, and the Supreme Court's guidance in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, the court held the delay of approximately twelve years was inordinate and required cogent explanation. Mistakes of counsel do not automatically constitute sufficient cause; a litigant must diligently follow up his case. The Applicant also failed to annex the prior suit's pleadings and did not explain why he never sought setting aside of the 2018 dismissal. The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs, the application being unopposed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted against the Land Registrar's decision of 26th September 2014

Holding

Leave refused; the delay of approximately twelve years was inordinate and insufficiently explained, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause

Reasoning

The jurisdiction to enlarge time under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 5 is discretionary and requires sufficient cause. A delay of about twelve years demands a cogent, satisfactory and credible explanation. Blaming a former advocate is not automatic sufficient cause, as litigants must follow up their own cases. The Applicant also failed to annex the pleadings from the prior dismissed suit and did not explain why he never sought setting aside of the 2018 dismissal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy requiring the litigant to lay a basis that he was not at fault
  • A litigant must diligently follow up the progress of his own case; mistakes of counsel do not automatically warrant enlargement of time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 95 Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules (discretion to enlarge time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Parsayiato v District Land Registrar Kajiado Central (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4384 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LMISC. No. E028 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4384/eng@2026-07-09

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