Parsayiato v District Land Registrar Kajiado Central (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4384 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused a landowner permission to appeal a 2014 boundary decision, ruling a twelve-year delay lacked adequate 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 Applicant has established a case that warrants grant of leave to file an appeal out of time against the Respondent's decision dated 26th September 2014
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted against the Land Registrar's decision of 26th September 2014
Leave refused; the delay of approximately twelve years was inordinate and insufficiently explained, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause
The jurisdiction to enlarge time under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 5 is discretionary and requires sufficient cause. A delay of about twelve years demands a cogent, satisfactory and credible explanation. Blaming a former advocate is not automatic sufficient cause, as litigants must follow up their own cases. The Applicant also failed to annex the pleadings from the prior dismissed suit and did not explain why he never sought setting aside of the 2018 dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy requiring the litigant to lay a basis that he was not at fault
- A litigant must diligently follow up the progress of his own case; mistakes of counsel do not automatically warrant enlargement of time
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2026 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 95 Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules (discretion to enlarge time)
Relief refused
#Leave to file an appeal out of time against the Land Registrar's decision of 26th September 2014
Inordinate delay of approximately twelve years without cogent, satisfactory and credible explanation; failure to annex pleadings from the prior suit; failure to explain why the dismissal in Kajiado ELC No. 421 of 2017 was not set aside
Costs
No order as to costs (application unopposed)
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.
The jurisdiction of this Court to enlarge time is discretionary and must be exercised judicially upon sufficient cause being shown
While mistakes of counsel may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute sufficient cause, such allegation alone does not automatically warrant enlargement of time. A litigant bears a corresponding duty to diligently follow up the progress of his own case.
Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Given that the application was unopposed, I make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The record shows a prior suit Machakos ELC No. 152 of 2014 (later Kajiado ELC No. 421 of 2017) said to have been dismissed for want of prosecution on 7th March 2018, yet the present application is dated 7th May 2026 and the judgment describes the delay as approximately twelve years, which is consistent with the 2014 decision but the filing number E028 of 2026 versus the narrative dates cannot be reconciled from the face of the document alone
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Parsayiato v District Land Registrar Kajiado Central (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4384 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LMISC. No. E028 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4384/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.