Nyaga v Mukembo (on Behalf of 21 others as Listed) & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 4827 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Embu Environment and Land Court refused to stay a ruling and rejected a bid to appeal nine years late, finding the delay inexcusable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court should grant a stay of execution of the Ruling delivered by this Court on 09/05/2025 to enable the Applicant file an appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the Judgement dated 09/06/2016
Key legal issues
#Whether a stay of execution could issue in respect of the Ruling of 09/05/2025
No stay could issue because the Ruling struck out the Applicant's applications and was a negative order incapable of execution
The Ruling of 09/05/2025 had struck out the Applicant's applications dated 30/09/2020, 19/04/2021, 30/04/2021, 13/01/2023 and 20/07/2023 as irregularly filed in a concluded judicial review matter. Striking-out orders are negative orders incapable of execution; Order 42 Rule 6 stay presupposes an executable decree or order, so the prayer failed.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Yes, the High Court has jurisdiction under section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to entertain and determine applications for extension of time
Relying on Kenya Airport Authority v Timothy Nduvi Mutungi, the court held that although extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal may be sought in the Court of Appeal, the High Court also has jurisdiction by virtue of section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to entertain and determine such an application, so the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondents did not oust its power.
Whether the Applicant deserved an extension of time to appeal against the Judgment of 09/06/2016
No; the delay of about 9 years and 3 months was inordinate and unexplained, and the discretion was not exercised in the Applicant's favour
Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso principles and Salat v IEBC, the court weighed the length of delay, the reason given, the chances of appeal success and prejudice. The Applicant claimed he only learned of the 2016 Judgment after delivery but failed to explain why he did not appeal within a reasonable time after becoming aware; the delay was therefore inordinate and unexcused.
Legal principles established
#- A ruling striking out applications results in a negative order that is incapable of execution and therefore incapable of being stayed.
- The High Court has jurisdiction under section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to entertain and determine an application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal.
- In deciding whether to extend time for appealing the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 08/08/2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Ruling delivered on 09/05/2025 pending appeal
The Ruling struck out the Applicant's applications, giving rise to a negative order incapable of execution; there was nothing capable of being stayed
Leave to file an appeal out of time against the Judgment dated 09/06/2016
The delay of about 9 years and 3 months was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Respondents
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.
In the circumstances, the impugned ruling gave rise to a negative order incapable of execution. There is therefore nothing capable of being stayed pending the intended appeal.
I therefore find that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the Applicant's prayer for extension of time.
Consequently, I find that the Notice of Motion dated 08/08/2025 is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The Applicant is referred to inconsistently; a sole Applicant seeks the orders yet the parties include a '1st Applicant' opposing him, and counsel is recorded as appearing for 'the interested Applicant' without that party being defined elsewhere
Date anomalies: a replying affidavit is dated 16/02/2026 and grounds of opposition 23/03/2026 responding to an application dated 08/08/2025 and filed 14/10/2025, while the judgment is dated 23 July 2026
Page numbering anomaly: the final page is marked 'Page 9 of 8'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaga v Mukembo (on Behalf of 21 others as Listed) & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 4827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4827/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.