Republic v National Land Commission & 9 others; Wilson & 3 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4160 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Nyeri High Court allowed a late judicial review filing over a Karatina land dispute, keeping Court of Appeal stay orders in place, but made the applicants pay costs.
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 Ex parte Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025, filed out of the statutory 21-day period, should be deemed duly filed with effect from 31st July 2025
- 2.Whether the supporting affidavit sworn by the Ex parte Applicants' advocate rather than the applicants themselves is defective
- 3.Whether the orders of stay granted by the Court of Appeal on 31st July 2025 should be set aside and/or discharged as sought by the 2nd to 9th Interested Parties
Key legal issues
#Whether the 21-day statutory period for filing the substantive judicial review Notice of Motion could be extended
Yes - the extension was allowed in the interest of justice so the applicants' case could be heard on the merits
The court applied Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Salat principles on extension of time. Counsel had written follow-up letters to the Court of Appeal seeking updates on the judgment and only learned of its delivery on 27th November 2025 from opposing counsel. The substantive motion was filed on 2nd December 2025, which the court found was not an inordinate delay, and counsel acted promptly. The delay was attributable to lack of knowledge of the judgment's delivery, not any fault of the applicants.
Whether the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicants' advocate was incompetent
No - the advocate deposed only to matters within his own knowledge, namely letters he wrote and follow-up efforts
The court relied on the Turea Limited decision, holding that an advocate may swear an affidavit on formal or non-contentious matters of fact within his knowledge under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Advocates Practice Rules. The affidavit here deposed to the letters Counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar and his follow-up on the judgment, matters within his personal knowledge, so the objection failed.
Whether the stay orders granted by the Court of Appeal should be set aside as sought by the 2nd to 9th Interested Parties
No - that application was dismissed, subject to the Interested Parties being awarded costs of defending the extension-of-time application
Having allowed the Ex parte Applicants' application for extension of time, the court reasoned that the stay granted by the Court of Appeal should stand so that the applicants' substantive judicial review motion could be heard on the merits and the Court of Appeal's orders would not be rendered futile. However, the court balanced the prejudice to the Interested Parties by awarding them the costs of defending the extension application, noting the Court of Appeal had already awarded the applicants the costs of the appeal and the leave application.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis including a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of prejudice
- An affidavit sworn by an advocate is not defective merely because it was sworn by an advocate; it is defective only if it deposes to contentious matters of which the advocate has no personal knowledge
- Where a limited time is fixed for doing any act under the Rules, the court has power to enlarge that time as the justice of the case requires, even after expiry of the time
Court orders
#- 1.The Ex parte Applicants' application dated 3rd December 2025 seeking leave to file the substantive judicial review Notice of Motion out of time is allowed
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025 is deemed duly filed within the prescribed 21-day period, with effect from 31st July 2025
- 3.The 2nd to 9th Interested Parties' application dated 28th November 2025 seeking to set aside the stay granted is dismissed
- 4.The Ex parte Applicants to pay the Interested Parties the costs of defending the application dated 3rd December 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with extension of time under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside and/or discharge of the stay granted by the Court of Appeal on the implementation of the National Land Commission's determination of 21st January 2019
Dismissed in the interest of justice so that the Ex parte Applicants' case may be heard on the merits and the orders of the Court of Appeal may not be in vain
Costs
The Interested Parties awarded the costs of defending the Ex parte Applicants' application dated 3rd December 2025; the Ex parte Applicants to bear those costs
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 am therefore of the opinion that the Ex parte applicants’ application dated December 3, 2025, will be allowed in the interest of justice, so that the Ex parte applicants’ case may be heard on the merits and the orders of the Court of Appeal may not be in vain.
I am also of the opinion that the Interested Parties’ application dated 28th November 2025, seeking to set aside the stay granted, be dismissed in the interest of justice, subject to their being awarded the costs of defending the Ex parte Applicants’ application dated 3rd December 2025
Orders accordingly.
it is not the mere swearing of an afidavit by an advocate that renders it defective, but the swearing of an afidavit on contentious issues of which he or she has no knowledge of
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Notice of Motion was dated '2nd December 2025' but elsewhere refers to the application seeking leave to file it out of time as dated both '3rd December 2025' and 'December 3, 2025'; the body also refers to a letter dated '19th October 2025' while the earlier narrative describes a letter that 'received no response by November 19, 2025', suggesting inconsistent dates in the record.
Typographical error in the date of the first application: 'Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2925'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 9 others; Wilson & 3 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review proceedings arising from Chamber Summons dated 20th March 2019 (Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4160/eng@2026-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.