Lusololi v Mutondo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 252 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court refused a late appeal because the applicant could not prove why he waited four months to file.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is good and sufficient cause to extend time for filing appeal against the decision made in Kakamega CMC ELC Case no. E064 of 2020 delivered on 26th February 2025
Key legal issues
#Good and sufficient cause for extension of time under Section 79G
Application dismissed as applicant failed to explain delay; mere allegation of delayed proceedings without certificate of delay or dates of application/supply is implausible
The court applied Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Salat criteria. The applicant attributed the delay to slow supply of certified proceedings but did not state when he applied for proceedings or when they were supplied, and did not attach a certificate of delay. The application was filed four months after the impugned decision, which was inordinate and unexplained.
Legal principles established
#- To obtain leave to appeal out of time, the applicant must explain the reason for delay to the satisfaction of the court; the discretion is not exercised whimsically or arbitrarily
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 25th June 2025 dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Kakamega
- Kakamega CMC ELC Case no. E064 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Leave to file appeal out of time
Applicant failed to explain delay to the court's satisfaction; four-month delay was inordinate and unexplained, no certificate of delay or proof of timely application for proceedings
Costs
costs to the respondent
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.
I therefore find and hold that the applicant has failed to explain to the court’s satisfaction the delay in filing the appeal, and hence does not deserve the orders sought.
I find and hold that the application dated 25th June 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court.
Issues in the judgment
#Supporting affidavit is dated 24th June 2020 while the motion is dated 25th June 2025 and the judgment was delivered 26th February 2025 - apparent typographical error in the affidavit date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lusololi v Mutondo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 252 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 25th June 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/252/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.