Sum v Amaisa (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4972 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court dismissed a bid to appeal late and halt eviction because the applicant explained neither the three-month delay nor avoided an existing appeal.
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 deserves leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of 19th December 2025
- 2.Whether the applicant deserves stay of execution of the said judgment
- 3.Whether the applicant established sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to appeal
Application refused because the delay was unexplained and illness/financial constraint were not proved.
The application was filed close to three months after the judgment. The court applied the Nicholas Salat principles on length of and reasons for delay, and endorsed the County Executive of Kisumu requirement that the whole period of delay be satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to prove the alleged illness and financial hardship, so the equitable discretionary remedy was not deserved.
Stay of execution / preservation orders
Refused because the applicant deliberately bypassed the pending appeal rather than filing a cross-appeal.
The court found power to grant interim preservation orders under section 13(7) of the ELC Act and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal discretion. However, since Kapsabet ELC Appeal No. E001 of 2026 on the same subject matter and parties was pending and the applicant had not filed a cross-appeal, he deliberately filed the application and did not deserve preservation orders.
Legal principles established
#- In applications for extension of time, the whole period of delay must be declared and explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (interim preservation orders)
Relief refused
#Moot prayer (a) of the application
Not considered; application dismissed in entirety
Leave to file appeal out of time
Delay of close to three months not satisfactorily explained; illness and financial constraint not proved
Stay of execution
Applicant, aware of the pending appeal on the same subject matter and parties, deliberately filed the application and does not deserve preservation orders
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 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.
Accordingly, the application dated 17 TH March 2026 is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
’It is trite that in application for extension of time, the whole period of delay should be declared and explained satisfactory to the court’
The applicant being conscious of the said appeal deliberately filed the instant application, does not deserve any preservation orders in the circumstances.
This is an equitable discretionary remedy to a deserving party.
Issues in the judgment
#Discrepancy in the date of the application: heading says Notice of Motion dated 5th March 2026 but the ruling dismisses an application dated 17th March 2026.
Jurisdictional anomaly: a single judge of the ELC purports to grant leave to appeal out of time against a PM's decision, a matter ordinarily within the High Court's appellate jurisdiction; also internally referred to as 'Nicholas Salt case' in places versus 'Nicholas Salat'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sum v Amaisa (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4972 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCL MISC No. E005 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4972/eng@2026-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.