Sokoiyan & another v Kurende & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 442 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kajiado's Environment and Land Court refused to revive a five-year-old land boundary appeal because the applicants took too long without a credible explanation.
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 Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of leave to file an appeal out of time against the decision/report of the Land Registrar.
Key legal issues
#Whether good and sufficient cause existed for filing the appeal out of time
No - the delay of over five years was inordinate and inadequately explained
Applying section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Leo Sila Mutiso principles, the court held the five-year delay inordinate. The applicants knew of the 2019 site visit and their blame on former advocates could not explain years of inaction. Arguability alone cannot cure unexplained, inordinate delay.
Whether the changed ground situation (20,000+ families occupying the land) rendered the appeal arguable enough to grant leave
It may raise an arguable point but is insufficient to cure the inordinate delay
The court accepted that mass occupation and the status of titles might raise an arguable point about execution of the report, but held this factor alone could not overcome the failure to explain the delay, and that litigation must come to an end.
Legal principles established
#- The decision whether or not to grant leave to appeal out of time is a judicial discretion which must be exercised on laid down principles, not on sympathy or benevolence.
- The factors for extension of time are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the arguability of the appeal and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
- Where the appellant has no valid excuse for delay, the appeal must be dismissed as time-barred even at the risk of hardship.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2025 is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act; Orders 22 and 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal out of time against the Land Registrar's report dated 3rd December 2019
Inordinate delay of over five years, unexplained by good and sufficient cause; applicants participated in the 2019 boundary determination and were indolent
Temporary stay of execution of the Land Registrar's report recommendations and maintenance of status quo
Fall with the main application, which was dismissed
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st 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.
It is clear, therefore, that the decision whether or not to grant leave to appeal out of time is an exercise of judicial discretion.
To remain silent for five years without inquiring about the outcome of a process they participated in amounts to inaction and indolence.
Litigation must come to an end. To reopen a matter settled in 2019/2020 would severely prejudice the Respondent who is entitled to the finality of the process.
The upshot is that the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates between stating the report was filed in court on 9th July 2019 and 9th July 2020
Section 16A referred to as replicated 'under section 16A of the Environment and Land Court' without naming the Act and citing the provisions verbatim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sokoiyan & another v Kurende & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2025 (ELC Case No. 842 of 2017-related). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/442/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.