Atunga v Rasungu & 2 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3003 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court gave a landowner extra time to appeal because delays in getting certified court documents were not her fault.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant has established sufficient basis for the grant of the orders sought, namely leave to file an appeal out of the statutory time
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established good and sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of the statutory period under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act
The Applicant was deserving of the court's discretion to extend time; the application was allowed with directions to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days.
The court applied the Supreme Court's principles in Salat v IEBC and the Court of Appeal's factors in Paul Musili Wambua: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success and prejudice to the respondent. The delay of approximately 38 days was attributable to delay in obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, and the Respondent would suffer no prejudice since the trial suit had been dismissed with costs. Article 159(2)(d) favoured hearing the appeal on its merits rather than penalising procedural delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, exercised on a case-by-case basis upon reasons.
- In an application for leave to appeal out of time, the court is not required to determine the merits or likely success of the intended appeal.
- Courts must administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 3rd October, 2023 is hereby allowed
- 2.The Applicant is directed to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days of this ruling
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap. 8D); Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Considering the application herein in its totality, I am persuaded that the Applicant is deserving of the discretion of this court to extend time. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 3rd October, 2023 is hereby allowed. The Applicant is directed to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days of this ruling.
At this juncture, it is not the business of this court to decide whether the appeal will successful or not.
Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the present application before the Environment and Land Court, nor the neutral citation.
The parties to the application include a 2nd and 3rd Respondent per the underlying suit title ('Charles Nyatundo Rasugu & 2 Others') but only the 1st Respondent's response is recorded, and the other Respondents are not otherwise addressed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Atunga v Rasungu & 2 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3003 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arising from Kajiado CMELC No. E009 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3003/eng@2025-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.