Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELCLA E220 OF 2025

Julius Kipkeny Kolil & another v Nancy Waithera Kiruri

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2026
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
1,326 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an appeal filed 341 days late without leave, confirming statutory appeal deadlines are mandatory.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Milimani by Notice of Motion dated 24th October 2025 seeking striking out of the Appellants' Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd October 2025 as filed out of time, plus costs. The impugned subordinate court ruling was delivered on 11th January 2024; the appeal was filed 341 days later, far outside the 30-day limit in Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The Appellants explained the delay by citing the wait for certified copies of proceedings, relying on Vallabhdas Damoda on sufficient cause, and argued that striking out would be an extreme measure causing them prejudice. The court held that only the period after the request for proceedings was attributable to the court; the appellants' 14-month delay before requesting proceedings was unexplained. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs IEBC, and the Californian authority in Silverbrand, the court held that timely filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite and a statutory time limit is substantive and mandatory; Section 3A inherent jurisdiction cannot override Section 79G. No leave to file out of time was ever sought, so the memorandum of appeal was a nullity. Allowing the application, the court struck out the memorandum of appeal and the entire record of appeal and awarded costs to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the notice of motion application is merited and by extension whether the appeal is properly before this court

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of an appeal filed out of time without leave

Holding

The memorandum of appeal filed 341 days after judgment without leave is a nullity and fatally defective.

Reasoning

Section 79G allows 30 days to appeal. The appellants did not seek leave to file out of time. They only explained delay from request to certification of proceedings, not the 14-month delay before requesting proceedings. Following the Supreme Court in Salat, timely filing is substantive and mandatory; inherent jurisdiction cannot displace the statute.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal filed out of time without leave to extend time is a nullity; statutory time limits cannot be overridden by inherent jurisdiction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 24th October 2025 found merited
  2. 2.Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd October 2025 struck out as incompetent and a nullity
  3. 3.Costs to the Respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act; Section 79G and Section 3A cited as governing

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.

A time limit for filing an appeal set by a statute is not a mere procedural technicality. It is a substantive and mandatory requirement that goes to the very root of a court's authority to hear the matter.
p. 5mandatory nature of statutory filing timelines
The Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd October 2025, having been filed out of the statutory time limit without leave of the Court, is incompetent and a nullity and is hereby struck out.
p. 7final orders - striking out the appeal
the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Unless the notice is actually or constructively filed within the appropriate filing period, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the appeal
p. 4timely filing as jurisdictional prerequisite (quoting Silverbrand)

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Parties styled appellants but respondent labeled 'APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'; role descriptions inconsistent

minor

Submissions dated 6th July 2026 filed in a ruling delivered 24th September 2026 - only appellants' submissions noted

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Julius Kipkeny Kolil & another v Nancy Waithera Kiruri", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA E220 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5763/eng@2026-09-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.