Mutuma v National Bank Of Kenya & 3 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5023 (KLR) (26 June 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5023 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU ENVIRONMENT & LAND MISCELLANEOUS CASE E001 OF 2024 CK NZILI, J JUNE 26, 2024 BETWEEN PHINEUS MUTUMA ................................................................................. PLAINTIFF AND NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA ..................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT DUNCAN WATTA .......................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT JENARO MARKO GIKUNDA ....................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT HELLEN KANANA MUTEA ......................................................... 4TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. Extension of time to file an appeal is a discretionary power bestowed upon a court under section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act. A party applying must show suficient reason why the appeal ought to be admitted out of time. In the application dated 30.1.2024, the applicant has deponed an afidavit sworn by Phineus Mutuma on the even date saying that he was not aware of the delivery date of the judgment until 30.1.2024, yet it was read on 27.10.2023 in absence of the parties. 2. It is averred that the initial judgment date of 28.9.2024 was changed as the magistrate had been transferred to Meru. He blames the court for the delay and fears losing his land. The draft memorandum of appeal is attached to the applicant. 3. The application is opposed through a replying afidavit of Chrispin Mathiya for a delay of three months, said to be inordinate for lack of a follow-up and an explanation for the delay. The memorandum of appeal is also said to be raising no tangible grounds for appeal. In Nicholas Arap Salat v IEBC and 6 others (2013) eKLR, the court observed that an extension of time is not a right of a party but a discretion by the court to be exercised on a case-to-case basis, where the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court and in the interest of justice. Other than saying that a magistrate was https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5023/eng@2024-06-26 1
page 1 of 2
transferred and laying the blame on the court, the applicant does not state what he did on his part to make a follow-up with the court registry. 4. It is not enough to blame other parties without explaining how vigilant one has been, for a court only helps the vigilant and not the indolent. A single letter showing follow-up would have suficed to show that between 27.10.2023 and 1.2.2024, the applicant was not in slumber. The explanation given is not satisfactory. I reject the application. The same is dismissed with costs. 5. File closed. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERU ON THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 HON. C K NZILI JUDGE In presence of C.A Kananu/Mukami Miss Gitari for 1st respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5023/eng@2024-06-26 2
page 2 of 2