Muli & 2 others v Matolo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 814 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court gave subsistence farmers 30 more days to deposit Kshs.100,000 in security for costs, crediting their prompt application and proven financial hardship.
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 met the threshold for extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants met the threshold for extension of time to comply with the security-for-costs order
The Applicants satisfied the threshold because the application was made promptly after the lapse of the 30-day compliance period and financial hardship was demonstrated.
The court applied the Salat principles for extension of time. The order of 5th May, 2025 required the Applicants to deposit Kshs.100,000/= within 30 days as security for costs. The application for extension was filed immediately after the lapse of that period. The Applicants, subsistence farmers, evidenced inability to raise the sum via a chief's letter. Promptness warranted indulgence and the time for compliance was extended by 30 days.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis; delay must be explained and prejudice considered.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time for compliance with the order of 5th May, 2025 by 30 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- trial court (Magistrates' Court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to extend time on appeal (appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's judgment)
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.
As the application for extension of time was made promptly, I find that the Applicants deserve extension of time.
I therefore extend the time of compliance with the order of 5th May, 2025 by 30 days from this date. The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment text (words rendered as 'afiord', 'sufier', 'efiorts')
Date inconsistency: submissions dated 17th November, 2025 filed by Applicants but Respondents' submissions dated 30th September, 2025 are described as filed after
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muli & 2 others v Matolo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E005 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/814/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.