Merie v Gakuya & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5082 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay of proceedings should be granted pending the intended appeal
Stay of proceedings was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a pending appeal before a higher court and did not meet the criteria for stay
Applying Order 42 Rule 6(1) and the criteria in William Odhiambo Ramogi and Global Tours & Travels, the court found the first limb unsatisfied: no pending appeal before the Court of Appeal was demonstrated. The policy favours stay applications being made in the appellate court. Given the suit's long pendency, the court exercised its discretion to decline stay in favour of expeditious disposal.
Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
Leave to appeal out of time was refused as the applicant neither showed a notice of appeal nor a draft appeal, and delay and prejudice weighed against extension
Applying the Salat principles, extension of time is discretionary and equitable; the applicant bears the burden of explaining delay. Counsel's illness was said to explain the delay, but the applicant produced no notice of appeal or draft appeal. The court also considered the prejudice to the plaintiff from further delayed hearing of the long-pending suit and found no merit in the application.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of proceedings has a high threshold and the applicant must demonstrate an appeal pending before a higher court, an arguable appeal, and expeditious application
- Whether to grant a stay of proceedings is a judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice, weighing expeditious disposal, arguability of the intended appeal and expedition of the application
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant must lay a basis for the delay to the satisfaction of the court
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 19th January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
- 2.Further mention on 3rd November 2026 to fix a date for hearing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6, Order 43 Rule 1(2) and (3) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Merie v Gakuya & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5082 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5082/eng@2026-08-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.