Apollo Muinde & Partners Advocates v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5335 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused the National Land Commission more time to appeal a costs ruling, punishing a four-month, unexplained delay.
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 demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant enlargement of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the ruling of 27th November 2025
- 2.Whether the intended appeal raises arguable grounds warranting grant of leave to appeal
- 3.Whether the Notice of Appeal dated 11th December 2025 should be deemed duly filed or leave granted to file a fresh notice out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of about four months in seeking leave to appeal was inordinate and excusable
The delay was inordinate and unexcused; counsel's mistake does not excuse it as ignorance of the law is generally not a defence
The court compared the date of the ruling (27 November 2025) with the filing date (19 March 2026) and found inordinate delay. The sole explanation was an error by counsel in filing a notice of appeal without first obtaining leave, which the court held could not constitute sufficient cause. Applying the Salat principles, the applicant failed to lay a basis for the discretionary relief.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The intended appeal lacks arguability; the judge's decision to re-tax rather than remit was within her discretion given the protracted history of the taxation
Relying on Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board, the court noted that although the general practice upon finding an error of principle is remittal, a judge has discretion to deal with the matter himself where justice requires. The court below had exercised that discretion to re-tax item 1, noting the matter had been before the courts for years, so no arguable appeal arose.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy, not a right; the applicant must lay a basis, explain delay, show absence of prejudice and absence of undue delay
- On a reference from a taxing officer, where an error of principle is found the general practice is remittal, but the judge retains discretion to re-tax himself where the justice of the case so requires
- An application for leave to appeal under section 75 must in the first instance be made to the court making the order, orally at the time of the order or within fourteen days
Court orders
#- 1.The instant application is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 43 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Extension of time to seek leave to appeal against the ruling of 27th November 2025
Inordinate, unexplained delay from November 2025 to March 2026; counsel's mistake does not excuse it
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and deeming of the Notice of Appeal dated 11th December 2025 as duly filed
No arguable appeal and applicant fails to satisfy the Salat principles for extension of time
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the Respondent, Apollo Muinde).
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 view that the Applicant lacks an arguable appeal, does not satisfy the requirements for exercising this Court's discretion to extend time and to be granted leave to file an appeal, and, accordingly, the instant application is dismissed with costs.
My considered view is that coming to Court in March 2026 to seek an extension of time to file an appeal against this Court's ruling dated 27th November 2025 constitutes inordinate delay.
Extension of time is not a right of a litigant against a Court, but a discretionary power of the Courts which litigants have to lay a basis [for] where they seek [grant of it
The judge has however a discretion to deal with the matter himself if the justice of the case so requires
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the National Land Commission inconsistently as both Respondent and Applicant
The supporting affidavit is said to have been sworn by Brian Ikol but the depositions are referred to as those of the Applicant's 'further affidavit' in reply, though described as the Applicant's supporting affidavit earlier
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Apollo Muinde & Partners Advocates v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5335 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC MISC. No. E005 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5335/eng@2026-08-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.