https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2961

Wachira v Ringera (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2961 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2961 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2026 BM Eboso, J May 13, 2026 Between Martin Kibe Wachira Applicant and Stephen Kirimi Ringera Respondent Ruling 1.Through the application dated 24/3/2026, Martin Kibe Wachira seeks an order enlarging the time for lodging an appeal against the ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, dated 19/12/2025. He also seeks an order staying execution of the said ruling. The application is opposed by the respondent. The two key questions that fall for determination in the application are: (i) Whether the criteria for enlargement of time for lodging an appeal to this court has been met; and (ii) Whether the criteria for granting an order of stay of execution by this court when exercising appellate jurisdiction has been met. 2.On enlargement of time, the relevant legal frameworks are contained in Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. Both frameworks require the applicant to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay. 3.The current prevailing jurisprudential principles on exercise of jurisdiction to enlarge time are contained in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat Vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2013] KECA) in which the court stated as follows:a.Extension of time was not a right of a party. It was an equitable remedy that was only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;b.A party who sought extension of time had the burden of laying a basis for it to the satisfaction of the court;c.Whether the court ought to exercise the discretion to extend time, was a consideration to be made on a case to case basis;d.Whether there was a reasonable reason for the delay, which ought to be explained to the satisfaction of the court;e.Whether there would be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension was granted;f.Whether the application had been brought without undue delay; and;g.Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest ought to be a consideration for extending time. 4.In Mukora Mwangi v Charles Gichina – Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1997, the Court of Appeal summed up the relevant principles as follows:-“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well-settled that, in general, the matters which this court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an enlargement of time are: first, the length of the delay; secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.” 5.The applicant has explained that his failure to lodge an appeal within the prescribed time was occasioned by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal’s failure to render the impugned decision on the scheduled day or to issue notice to the parties on delivery of the ruling. It is the case of the applicant that he was not aware that the Tribunal eventually uploaded the ruling on the Judiciary’s Case Tracking System Platform [CTS Platform] in February this year. He contends that he learnt about the uploading of the ruling on 16/3/2026 and immediately brought the present application. 6.Although the respondent has faulted the applicant for being indolent, I do not think evidence of indolence has been demonstrated. The court is, in the circumstances, satisfied that the applicant has tendered good and sufficient cause explaining the delay. 7.On the plea for an order of stay pending appeal, the court is not sure that the contemplated appeal will be actualized. The applicant is directed to renew and canvass the plea on the platform of the intended appeal once it is filed. 8.On costs, both parties have incurred costs principally because the Tribunal did not render its decision in the conventional and prescribed manner. In the circumstances, parties will bear their respective costs of the application. 9.In the end, the application dated 24/3/2026 is disposed in the following terms: -a.The applicant is granted 7 days within which to lodge an appeal against the decision dated 19/12/2025 rendered in Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Meru) Case No E048 of 2024.b.The applicant is directed to renew and canvass the plea for an order of stay of execution pending disposal of an appeal on the platform of the intended appeal once the appeal is filed.c.Parties shall bear their respective costs of the miscellaneous application/suit.d.This miscellaneous application file is marked “case closed”. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.B M EBOSO [MR]ELC JUDGEIn the Presence of:Ms Mugwe for the ApplicantMrs Maheli for the RespondentCourt Assistant – Mr. E. Tupet