Kintet & another v Ole Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal Miscellaneous E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4001 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Narok refused to let two landowners file an appeal late, and refused to protect their plots, because they sat out two existing appeals.
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 established sufficient cause to warrant leave to file and serve an appeal out of time.
- 2.Whether the Applicants have satisfied the conditions for the grant of temporary injunctive orders pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application.
Key legal issues
#Extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
The Applicants did not establish sufficient cause; the delay was inordinate and they failed to participate in two existing appeals from the same judgment.
The court applied the Salat and Mutiso principles. Judgment was delivered on 13th May 2025; the earlier appeal was struck out on 27th November 2025 after a preliminary objection was upheld. There were already two consolidated appeals from the same judgment (ELCA E010 of 2025 and E008 of 2025) in which the Applicants could have participated but did not. The draft memorandum raised the same issues as those appeals, so the application was overtaken by events.
Temporary injunction pending intended appeal
Refused because no leave to appeal out of time was granted and hence no appeal is pending or intended.
Preservatory orders pending appeal presuppose a subsisting or competent appeal. Having disallowed the prayer for extension of time, the court held there was no appeal pending or intended, and therefore no basis for temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from dealing with Plot Nos. 307 and 308 Block 4, Narok Town.
Costs
Costs to the Respondents as successful litigants.
The court found that the Respondents were the successful litigants and were entitled to the costs of the application, applying the principle that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not available as of right, granted upon consideration of the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent and whether the application was brought without undue delay.
- A litigant who fails to participate in already-existing appeals from the same judgment cannot claim sufficient cause for extension of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for leave to file and serve the appeal out of time is disallowed.
- 2.The prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed.
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Narok
- Narok CMCC No. 57 of 2013 (consolidated with Narok CMCC No. 200 of 2013)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Leave to file and serve the appeal out of time
No sufficient cause for the delay was shown; there are already two appeals emanating from the same judgment in which the Applicants failed to participate.
Deeming the draft Petition of Appeal as properly filed and served out of time
Follows automatically from refusal of leave to appeal out of time.
Temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from dealing with Plot Nos. 307 and 308 Block 4, Narok Town
With no leave granted, there is no appeal pending or intended upon which preservatory orders could be founded.
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2025 is disallowed entirely with costs to the Respondents.
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.
Consequently, this court finds and holds that the instant Notice of Motion Application dated 24th December 2025, is not meritorious, and the same is disallowed entirely with costs to the Respondents. It is so ordered.
The Applicants have not established suficient cause to warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
Having failed to grant leave to appeal out of time, it is evident that there is no appeal pending or intended to be filed, and consequently, there would be no reasons to issues any orders of temporary injunction.
This court concurs with the Respondents averments and submissions that mistakes of counsel do not invariably entitle a litigant to extension of time
Issues in the judgment
#Incomplete citation in the body of the ruling - the sentence introducing the extension-of-time principles ends abruptly with 'See the case of' with no case named.
The court describes the prayer as for a 'Petition of Appeal' in one place but the annexed document is referred to elsewhere as a 'draft Memorandum of Appeal'.
The 2nd Respondent's submissions at paragraph 73 attribute ownership of both plots to the Respondents in terms that appear inconsistent internally (Plot 307 to the 1st Respondent, Plot 308 to 'him, the 2nd Respondent'), while paragraph 3 records the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim in CMCC 57 of 2013 without naming the party.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kintet & another v Ole Kunguru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal Miscellaneous E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2025 in Narok Environment and Land Appeal (E008 of 2025 consolidated matters). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4001/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.