Automated Summary
Key Facts
Environment and Land Court at Narok ruled on January 29, 2026, in Environment and Land Case 65 of 2018. The case involved Nyakinyua Mwihangiri Mwimuto Co. Ltd (Plaintiff) versus Ann Wangari Thairu, Joseph Ndungu Thairu, and Legal Administrators of the Estate of the Late Priscillah Wangari Thairu (Defendants). The Plaintiff alleged that a virtual judgment delivered on May 19, 2023, in their favor was later contradicted by a written judgment (uploaded on August 5, 2025) that dismissed their case and allowed the Defendants' counter-claim. The Plaintiff sought leave to file an appeal out of time and a stay of execution of the written judgment. The court found sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and granted both requests, ruling that the Plaintiff's members would suffer irreparable loss if the judgment was executed without a stay.
Issues
- The court determined whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to file an appeal after the written judgment, dated 19th May 2023, was unexpectedly issued in a manner contrary to the virtual judgment delivered on the same date, causing the applicant to miss the deadline due to reliance on the initial favorable virtual ruling.
- The court assessed whether a stay of execution should be granted to prevent the eviction of the plaintiff's members from their land, which they occupied based on the virtual judgment, pending the appeal's resolution, considering the potential irreparable harm and the lack of prejudice to the respondent.
Holdings
The court ruled that the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Application dated 15th August 2025 is merited. The court granted leave to appeal out of time against the judgment delivered on 19th May 2023 and issued a stay of execution of the same judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Remedies
- The court issued a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on May 19, 2023, to prevent the defendant from enforcing the judgment until the appeal is resolved.
- The court granted the plaintiff's application for extension of time to file an appeal, allowing them to appeal the May 19, 2023 judgment despite the statutory deadline having passed.
- The court ordered that each party shall bear their own costs incurred in the application and appeal proceedings.
Legal Principles
The court recognized the Plaintiff's legitimate expectation that the written judgment would be consistent with the virtual judgment delivered on 19th May 2023. The Plaintiff claimed they had no need to appeal because they believed the written judgment would match the virtual judgment in their favor. The court found this to be a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as the written judgment was not available until 5th August 2025, and the Plaintiff had been led to believe the virtual judgment was in their favor.
Precedent Name
- Butt Vs Rent Restriction Tribunal
- Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat vs IEBC & 7 Others
- Leo Sila Mutiso vs Rose Wangari Mwangi
- James Wangalwa & Another vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
- County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu
- Mombasa County Government vs Kenya Ferry Services
- UAP Insurance Co vs Michael John Beckett
- Paul Musili Wambua vs Attorney General & 2others
- Thuita Mwangi vs Kenya Airways Ltd
- Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui Vs Tony Ketter & 5 Others
- Nuthu vs Karanja
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
LN Gacheru
Passage Text
- The court has gone through the record and has noted the judgment in issue was delivered on 19th May 2023. However, the court record shows the original file and judgement were received at Narok ELC on 29th July 2025, and the judgment was uploaded on the CTS on 5th August 2025.
- The court has considered the impugned judgment, the draft Memo of Appeal and this court finds that it raises triable issues and is arguable. Further, it is alleged that the Plaintiff's members are in possession of their individual portions of land from the suit land, and if the said judgment is executed, then there is a likelihood of them being evicted from the suit land, thus suffering irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.