Eliazar & another v Sambu (Environment and Land Appeal E049 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2554 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Eliazar & another v Sambu (Environment and Land Appeal E049 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2554 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Leave was granted for JK Kaptich & Associates Advocates to come on record as outgoing counsel was aware of the change. Extension of time to file appeal was denied due to lack of plausible explanation for inordinate delay, absence of valid appeal, and failure to demonstrate triable issues. Stay of execution was denied as no valid appeal existed and applicant failed to satisfy conditions for stay. Applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 2554 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Roseline Jepkoech Eliazar; Appellant/respondent: Walter Kipkemboi Lagat; Respondent/applicant: Kipngetich Sambu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E049 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Change of Advocate, Stay of Execution, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Change of Advocate Stay of Execution Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roseline Jepkoech Eliazar

Appellant/respondent

Walter Kipkemboi Lagat

Appellant/respondent

Kipngetich Sambu

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to JK Kaptich & Associates Advocates to come on record for the applicant
  2. 2 Whether time should be extended for the applicant to file appeal out of time
  3. 3 Whether stay of execution of judgment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted for JK Kaptich & Associates Advocates to come on record as outgoing counsel was aware of the change. Extension of time to file appeal was denied due to lack of plausible explanation for inordinate delay, absence of valid appeal, and failure to demonstrate triable issues. Stay of execution was denied as no valid appeal existed and applicant failed to satisfy conditions for stay. Applicant was ordered to bear costs.