Merie v Gakuya & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5082 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 application dated 19th January 2026 for stay of proceedings and leave to appeal out of time has merit
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of proceedings should be granted pending the intended appeal
Stay of proceedings was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a pending appeal before a higher court and did not meet the criteria for stay
Applying Order 42 Rule 6(1) and the criteria in William Odhiambo Ramogi and Global Tours & Travels, the court found the first limb unsatisfied: no pending appeal before the Court of Appeal was demonstrated. The policy favours stay applications being made in the appellate court. Given the suit's long pendency, the court exercised its discretion to decline stay in favour of expeditious disposal.
Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
Leave to appeal out of time was refused as the applicant neither showed a notice of appeal nor a draft appeal, and delay and prejudice weighed against extension
Applying the Salat principles, extension of time is discretionary and equitable; the applicant bears the burden of explaining delay. Counsel's illness was said to explain the delay, but the applicant produced no notice of appeal or draft appeal. The court also considered the prejudice to the plaintiff from further delayed hearing of the long-pending suit and found no merit in the application.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of proceedings has a high threshold and the applicant must demonstrate an appeal pending before a higher court, an arguable appeal, and expeditious application
- Whether to grant a stay of proceedings is a judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice, weighing expeditious disposal, arguability of the intended appeal and expedition of the application
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant must lay a basis for the delay to the satisfaction of the court
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 19th January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
- 2.Further mention on 3rd November 2026 to fix a date for hearing
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6, Order 43 Rule 1(2) and (3) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings pending appeal
No pending appeal before the higher court was demonstrated and the policy favours stay applications being made in the appellate court
Leave to lodge an appeal out of time against the ruling of 18th November 2025
The applicant failed to produce a notice of appeal or draft appeal and did not satisfy the Salat extension-of-time principles
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/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.
this court finds no merit in the notice of motion dated 19th January, 2026 and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintifi/respondent. Further mention on 3rd November, 2026 to fix a date for hearing.
I note that the application herein fails on the first limb, that there must be an appeal pending before the higher court.
extension of time is not a right of a party; it is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
Due to the long-wound pendency of this suit at the hearing stage, and in facilitation of the inherent power of the court to promote the expeditious disposal of suits
Issues in the judgment
#The application seeks vacation of a hearing 'scheduled on 21st January, 2025' although the application is dated 19th January 2026 - the year appears inconsistent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Merie v Gakuya & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5082 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5082/eng@2026-08-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.