Olalui Group Ranch v Konchella & 11 others

RULING 1. Vide an application dated 20th July 2026, the applicants pray for two substantive prayers, namely: (a) enlargement of the period of six (6) months prescribed in the Judgment delivered on the 25th day of March 2026, within which the suit formerly known as Narok ELCC No. 335 of 2017, now Kilgoris ELC No. E003 of 2026, was to be heard and determined, and (b) an order that the proceedings before the Environment and Land Court shall continue upon the substitution of the 3rd respondent who is deceased with the duly appointed administrators of his Estate, the substitution of the 1st respondent as directed by the Environment and Land Court, and the amendment of the pleadings arising therefrom. Also, that this Court grants such further directions as it may deem just and expedient for the expeditious hearing and determination of Kilgoris ELC No. E003 of 2026. Lastly, the applicant prays for costs of this suit. 2. The grounds in support of the application are that: (a) in allowing the applicant's appeal against the Judgment of the Environment and Land Court in Narok ELC No. 335 OF 2017, this Court directed that the suit be heard afresh within six (6) months; (b) pursuant to the said Judgment, the matter was remitted back to the Environment and Land Court and assigned a new case number Kilgoris ELC No. E003 of 2026; (c) during the pendency of the appeal, the 3rd respondent passed away; (d) the estate of the deceased 3rd respondent is presently represented by duly appointed administrators, thereby necessitating substitution before the hearing of the suit can proceed; (e) upon transfer of the matter to the Environment and Land Court, the learned Judge on 30th June 2026 directed that the 1st respondent be substituted within two (2) months, after which the plainti would amend its plaint and the consequential pleadings; (f) the said substitutions and amendments are necessary to ensure that the real questions in controversy are eectually and completely determined and that all necessary parties are properly before the Court; (g) the inability to comply with the six (6) month timeline has arisen from supervening events that occurred after the Judgment of this Honourable Court and not from any indolence, neglect or deliberate delay on the part of the applicant, (h) unless the orders sought are granted, the timeline xed by this Honourable Court is likely to lapse before the necessary substitutions, amendments and pre-trial processes are concluded, thereby frustrating the implementation of the Judgment of this Honourable Court. 3. The application is opposed through the adavit dated 9th September 2026 sworn by John Kandy Sossio, the 5th respondent. The salient averments are that: 4. (a) the timeline xed by this Court for the matter to be heard has lapsed; (b) the applicant has proceeded against deceased persons without proper substitution; (c) the Court cannot proceed to enlarge time against deceased parties without their legal representatives; (d) the applicant amended pleadings and proceeded against dierent parties; (e) at least 6 respondents are now deceased, and (f) the applicant will suer no prejudice if the application is refused. I have read the applicants’ and the 2nd and 5th respondents’ submissions. No submissions or reply have been led on behalf of the other respondents (six of whom are said to be deceased). The submissions https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1682/eng@2026-09-16 2

page 2 of 4

led basically mirror the grounds in the parties’ respective adavits, therefore, it will add no value for me to rehash them here. 5. Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 provides that: “The Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, by order extend the time limited by these Rules, or by any decision of the Court or of a superior court, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing of the act, and a reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to that time as extended.” 6. As for the considerations to guide the Court in applications of this nature, the Supreme Court in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR stated: i. Extension of time is not right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; ii. A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court; iii. Whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case- to-case basis; iv. Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court; v. Whether there will be any prejudice suered by the respondents if the extension is granted; vi. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and, vii. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time. 7. To be deemed "plausible" and trigger the Court's discretion, the applicant generally must show: (a) that the delay was not due to negligent inaction. The delay must be accounted for by factors beyond the applicant's control (e.g., waiting for transcripts, severe illness, or genuine attorney negligence, though the latter is viewed critically). (b) It must cover the entire period. Explaining only part of the period of delay is "far from satisfactory" and most likely, it will not justify the extension. (c) the reason must not be "ctitious" or "calculated" delay the case. The Court requires honesty in the explanation. The guiding threshold is clearly set out in rule for which is “on such terms as may be just” which means the standard is the "interests of justice," which requires balancing the explanation for the delay, and prejudice to the parties. 8. I have looked at the reasons provided by the applicant highlighted earlier. There is a clear Court order of this Court remitting the case back to the trial court and a clear order directing that the case be heard within 6 months. Death cannot be blamed on any party. It is an act of God. It is said 6 respondents are now deceased. The law contemplates death and lays down a mechanism for substitution, a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The substitution, just like the trial is at risk of collapsing because the time line laid down by this Court while remitting the case back to the trial court has lapsed. This is a Court of justice. It cannot permit a case to collapse on account of circumstances beyond the parties’ powers. It is admitted that 6 of the respondents are dead. To deny this application is tantamount to this Court dispensing injustice. The applicant is asking for 6 months extension. This Court takes judicial notice of the process involved in seeking substitution and the fact that the law permits one year from the time of death, and also the fact that it is admitted 6 parties are dead, which https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1682/eng@2026-09-16 3

page 3 of 4

may require several substitutions. In the interests of justice, I am persuaded that a period longer than the six months sought by the applicant will serve the interests of justice and no prejudice will be suered by either of the parties. Accordingly, I extent the period ordered by this Court in the judgment dated 25th March 2026 within which the trial court should hear and determine the case from 6 months to one year and 2 months, time to run from today. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. J. MATIVO ..................... JUDGE OF APPEAL https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1682/eng@2026-09-16 4

page 4 of 4