https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1630

Wilson (Suing on behalf of the Residents of Chepchoina Phase III Settlement Scheme in Trans Nzoia County) v Attorney General & 158 others (Civil Application E059 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1630 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1630 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Eldoret Civil Application E059 of 2026 L Ndolo, JA July 31, 2026 Between Loshakep Chumel Wilson (Suing on behalf of the Residents of Chepchoina Phase III Settlement Scheme in Trans Nzoia County) Applicant and The Attorney General 1st Respondent The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands Housing & Physical Planning 2nd Respondent The Chief Land Registrar 3rd Respondent National Land Commission 4th Respondent County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia 5th Respondent Director of Land Adjudication & Settlement Scheme 6th Respondent Land Settlement Fund Board of Trustees 7th Respondent Geoffrey Mosiong Kirui & 151 others & 151 others & 151 others 8th Respondent (An application for extension of time to file an appeal from the Judgement of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (C.K Nzili, J) delivered on 18th March 2026) Ruling 1.The applicant has moved this Court through a notice of motion dated 22nd May 2026, seeking extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment of C.K Nzili, J delivered on 18th March 2026. 2.In explaining the delay, the applicant states that having lodged a notice of appeal on 19th March 2026, he formally requested for typed proceedings to enable him prepare a record of appeal but it was not until 12th May 2026, that the proceedings were supplied. The applicant adds that he applied for a certificate of delay on 20th May 2026 in terms of rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. 3.The applicant urges the Court to allow the application as the intended appeal concerns constitutional land rights affecting a large group of citizens of Trans Nzoia County. He adds that the period of delay being only four (4) days, is minimal and was caused by circumstances beyond his control. 4.The application is supported by the applicant’s own affidavit, annexing the letter requesting for typed proceedings, receipts evidencing payment of court fees, certificate of delay and a memorandum of appeal. In his written submissions dated 18th June 2026, the applicant reiterates the averments made in the application and supporting affidavit. The applicant relies on this Courts’ decisions in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] KECA 701 (KLR) and Omar Shurie vs Marian Rashe Yafar [2020] KECA 492 (KLR). 5.The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents oppose the application by a replying affidavit sworn by the 5th respondent on 29th June 2026. They accuse the applicant of violating rule 79 of the Court of Appeal Rules, by lodging a notice of appeal on 19th March 2026 and effecting service outside the prescribed timelines. The respondents also contend that the applicant failed to comply with directions regarding service of the application. 6.The 8th to 151st respondents oppose the application by a replying affidavit sworn by the 8th respondent on 11th June 2026. They also filed written submissions dated 23rd June 2026. These respondents took issue with the applicant’s failure to serve the notice of appeal and the letter bespeaking proceedings within the prescribed time. They urge that under rule 85 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the notice of appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn. 7.In their written submissions, the 8th to 151st respondents claim that the applicant presented the Court with two sets of facts regarding the lodging and service of the notice of appeal. They state that one version as narrated in the supporting affidavit dated 22nd May 2026 is that the notice of appeal was lodged on 19th March 2026, meaning that service of the said notice of appeal on 30th March 2026 was outside the timelines given by the Court. They argue that if the notice of appeal was lodged on 19th March 2026, then the 60 days’ timeline within which the applicant ought to have filed the record of appeal had lapsed as at the time of filing of this application. 8.The second version, according to these respondents is that if the notice of appeal was lodged on 26th March 2026, the 60 days’ timeline was to lapse on 25th May 2026 meaning that time for filing the appeal had not run out as at the time the application was filed. On this premise, the respondents argue that the application dated 22nd May 2026 is premature and incompetent. 9.I have considered the motion, the affidavits and submissions filed by the parties. The factors to be taken into account in determining an application brought under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules are well established. These factors have been restated in several decisions of this Court (See Leo Sila Mutiso vs Rose Hellen Wangari [1999] 2 EA 231 and Fakir Mohammed vs Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others [2005] KECA 340 (KLR)). The factors include; the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the intended appeal is arguable, and whether prejudice will be caused to the opposite side. 10.In their submissions, the respondents delved into an extensive argument as to when the notice of appeal was actually lodged, 19th March 2026 or 26th March 2026. They went further to give differing scenarios regarding the running of time on account of the 60-day window for filing the appeal. The only thing I will say on this is that sitting as a single Judge of this Court under rule 4 of the Court Rules, my jurisdiction is constrained to consider the applicant’s application for extension of time. 11.Based on the delay of 4 days declared by the applicant, which to my mind is fairly short, and the explanation given by the applicant for the delay, I am satisfied that a case for extension of time under rule 4 has been made. 12.The application dated 22nd May 2026 is therefore allowed. The applicant is directed to file and serve the record of appeal within the next 30 days from the date of this ruling. 13.The costs of the application will abide the outcome of the appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.L.M. NDOLO…………………….…………… JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDeputy Registrar