Bett v Tarus (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4487 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4487 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MISCELLANEOUS CASE E010 OF 2026 GMA ONGONDO, J JULY 13, 2026 BETWEEN MESHACK BETT ....................................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND AMON KIBITOK TARUS ..................................................................... DEFENDANT RULING 1. 2. This ruling is in respect of an application commenced by way of a Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2026 by the intended appellant/applicant through Maritim and Company Advocates for the orders thus; a. Spent b. That this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time for filing of appeal outside the stipulated period of 30 days after judgment. c. Spent d. That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal. e. That upon grant of prayer (2) hereinabove, the memorandum of appeal annexed annexed hereto be deemed to duly filed upon payment of the requisite fee. f. That costs of the application be granted to the applicant. The foundation on the application is the applicant’s supporting afidavit of 11 paragraphs sworn on even date together with a copy of the Judgement and a copy of the memorandum of appeal annexed thereto as well as eight grounds on the face of the same. Briefiy, the Applicant’s lamentation is that he was unable to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time owing to genuine financial constraints https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4487/eng@2026-07-13 1
page 1 of 2
which were beyond his control. That the intended appeal raises arguable issues and that the application be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. The respondent duly served with the application as disclosed in the afidavit of service sworn on 3rd July 2026, failed to respond to the application without any reason. 4. It is well settled that extension of time is an equitable remedy granted at the discretion of the court; see Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 7 others (2014) KLR. 5. Further, it is worth to note that in the case of Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal (1979) eKLR, the Court of Appeal remarked; ‘........and the Appellant (the Applicant herein) has an undoubted right of appeal.....’ 6. In the circumstances, the application is steadfast and meritorious. 7. Accordingly, the application dated 2nd July 2026, is hereby allowed in terms of prayers 2, 4 and 5 as stated in paragraphs 1 (b) (d) and (e) hereinabove. 8. The prospective appeal be filed and served within the next thirty days from this date in default the orders herein to lapse without any further orders being necessary. 9. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the prospective appeal. 10. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE In the presence of; Mr. Kipngetich learned counsel for the applicant. Walter, court assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4487/eng@2026-07-13 2
page 2 of 2