Nyaga & another v Gitau & another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to extend time to appeal because the applicants' explanation for the delay was untrue, and honesty matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an extension of time should be granted to the applicants to lodge an appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether an extension of time should be granted to the applicants to lodge an appeal out of time
Dismissed; the applicants failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and the motion itself was filed with undue delay
The court applied Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Salat principles. It found the motion was filed about a year after the impugned judgment and nearly two months after withdrawal of ELCA E003 of 2024. The court's own tracking of that appeal showed it was filed in time on 24 July 2024 and voluntarily withdrawn, so the claimed confusion over transfer was untrue.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's discretionary favour
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.The file is marked as closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and Order 43 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Extension of time to lodge an appeal against the judgment and decree of the principal magistrate delivered on 24 June 2024 in MCELC No. E005 of 2022
The motion was filed with undue delay and the applicants' explanation for the delay was untruthful and deceitful
Leave to file and serve the memorandum of appeal together with the record of appeal within 14 days
Follows from dismissal of the extension of time application
Costs
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.
In the end, the notice of motion dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent. The file is hereby marked as closed.
This court finds that the reasons for the delay have not been satisfactorily explained.
the applicants are untruthful and intended to mislead the court
although it has unfettered discretion, it must exercise that discretion judiciously, grounded in reason, material, and evidence placed before it
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the impugned judgment
Same conflict stated by the court itself
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaga & another v Gitau & another", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E086 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5878/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.