Nyaga & another v Gitau & another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to extend time to appeal because the applicants' explanation for the delay was untrue, and honesty matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an extension of time should be granted to the applicants to lodge an appeal out of time
Dismissed; the applicants failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and the motion itself was filed with undue delay
The court applied Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Salat principles. It found the motion was filed about a year after the impugned judgment and nearly two months after withdrawal of ELCA E003 of 2024. The court's own tracking of that appeal showed it was filed in time on 24 July 2024 and voluntarily withdrawn, so the claimed confusion over transfer was untrue.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's discretionary favour
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.The file is marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and Order 43 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaga & another v Gitau & another", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E086 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5878/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.