Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Mining & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4428 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Voi court refused to excuse a litigant who waited a full year to seek more time to deposit Kshs. 5 million as security, dismissing her application with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether time should be enlarged for filing security or alternate security by the Applicant
- 2.Whether Application is filed without inordinate delay
- 3.Whether Applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
- 4.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted
- 5.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the grounds for review of an order/ruling
- 6.Who is to pay costs of the Application
Key legal issues
#Inordinate delay in applying for extension of time
The application filed 365 days after the order of 6.3.2025 was inordinately late and no reasonable explanation was offered
The Applicant knew of her alleged financial inability from 2.10.2024 and of the security condition from 6.3.2025, yet waited until 3.4.2026 to move the court. She could have sought variation, review or appeal within reasonable time. The court found the delay of 365 days unexplained and the late application an abuse of due process.
Grounds for review under Order 45
No discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient cause was established
The Applicant was privy to the judgment of 2.10.2024 and the ruling of 6.3.2025; no new matter was presented. The ruling was issued on affidavit evidence with no apparent error. The Applicant also failed to annex a memorandum of appeal to show an appeal was filed and pending, so the burden of showing sufficient cause without compromising the judgment creditor's rights was not discharged.
Prejudice to the Respondent if extension granted
The judgment creditor would be prejudiced by the extension
Balancing the expeditious and proportionate administration of justice under sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, the court found that the Respondent's legitimate expectation of enjoying the fruits of judgment would be defeated by extending time for a party in inordinate delay with no appeal on record.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, available only to a deserving party who explains the delay and shows no prejudice to the other side
- A court may enlarge time even after the period fixed has expired, under section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 rule 6
- Financial inability known to a litigant when the order was made does not constitute sufficient cause for review filed a year later
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23.3.2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent/Plaintiff, paid by the Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e), 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- Consolidated with
- Voi ELC No. 11 of 2019, Voi ELC No. 16 of 2018, Mombasa ELC No. 159 of 2019
Relief refused
#Stay, suspension or enlargement of time for compliance with the order of 6.3.2025 requiring deposit of Kshs. 5,000,000/= as security
Application filed after 365 days' inordinate delay with no reasonable explanation; prejudice to the judgment creditor
Review, variation and/or setting aside of the security condition of the ruling of 6.3.2025 and substitution with alternative or reduced security
No discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient cause established under Order 45; no memorandum of appeal filed
Costs
The costs of the application shall be paid to the Respondent by the Applicant; the application dated 23.3.2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
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.
Having considered the statutory provisions cited and afidavit evidence on record I find no merit in the application dated 23.3.2026 hence dismiss it with costs to the Respondent/Plaintifi.
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 Applicant/4th Defendant filed the application dated 23.3.2026 on 3.4.2026 after lapse of 365 days from 6.3.2025 hence guilty of inordinate delay in filing the application dated 23.3.2026.
In the circumstances it is the judgement creditor who will be prejudiced should time be extended in favor of the Applicant to deposit alternate security.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated '13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026' in the coram but the application is described as decided in a ruling; internal chronology inconsistencies (e.g. application dated 23.3.2026 filed 1.4.2026 but paid for 3.4.2026, and reference to 3.4.3026)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Mining & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Voi ELC No. 11 of 2019 (consolidated with Voi ELC No. 16 of 2018 and Mombasa ELC No. 159 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4428/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.