Peter Muruya Imbutsi v Kellam Makunda Nashiali & Another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega gave a landowner 14 more days to file his appeal because his lawyer never told him the judgment had been delivered.
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 good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time for filing Notice of appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether good and sufficient cause was shown to justify extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal
The application was merited; the 19-day delay was not inordinate and the reason - counsel's failure to inform the appellant of the judgment - was excusable and uncontested
The court applied the Salat principles: the applicant must explain the delay to the court's satisfaction and show absence of prejudice. The judgment was delivered in the absence of all parties; counsel knew the date but did not inform the client. The explanation was uncontroverted, the delay was only 19 days after accounting for the court vacation, and no response or prejudice was demonstrated.
Computation of the 14-day period for filing a Notice of Appeal over the court vacation
Order 50 Rule 4 omits the period between 21st December and 13th January from computation, so the 14 days ended on 28th January 2026
The court computed the statutory 14-day period by excluding the December vacation period under Order 50 Rule 4, arriving at 28th January 2026 as the expiry date, and measured the applicant's delay from that date.
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 to the satisfaction of the court
- The discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously, considering the reason for and length of the delay and prejudice to the opposing party
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th February 2026 is allowed
- 2.The appellant is granted 14 days to file and serve Notice of appeal
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (power of the High Court to extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The application was unopposed, so the court made no order as to costs
Costs
No order as to costs - the application was unopposed
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 premises, I find and hold that the application dated 16 th February 2026 is merited and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant is granted 14 days to file and serve Notice of appeal.
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.
it is my view that the delay was not inordinate and the reason for the delay is excusable
As the application herein was unopposed, I make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number year (2022) is inconsistent with the 2026 application and 2025 judgment
Order 50 Rule 4 attributed to the Civil Procedure Act rather than the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Muruya Imbutsi v Kellam Makunda Nashiali & Another", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA No. E027 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5999/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.