https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2691

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2691

The delay was only seven days and was sufficiently explained by the applicant’s absence from the country and counsel’s procedural error. The court treated the appeal as duly filed, found no undue prejudice to the respondent because the decree had not yet been executed, and granted a temporary stay to preserve the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 2691 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: HARON BIWOTT KIPYEGO; Respondent: LAURENT KIBIEGO CHEPKAITANY
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Appeal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Judges
["CK Nzili"]
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Costs, Eviction, Mistake of Counsel, Appeals Out of Time
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Environment and Land Law Appellate Practice Extension of Time to Appeal Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Costs Eviction +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARON BIWOTT KIPYEGO

Appellant/applicant

LAURENT KIBIEGO CHEPKAITANY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Court Appeal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file the appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the delay and filing irregularity should be excused as a mistake of counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The delay was only seven days and was sufficiently explained by the applicant’s absence from the country and counsel’s procedural error. The court treated the appeal as duly filed, found no undue prejudice to the respondent because the decree had not yet been executed, and granted a temporary stay to preserve the subject matter of the appeal subject to security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • The memorandum of appeal dated 14/8/2025 is deemed duly filed on time.
  • The same shall be served upon the respondent.