Skip to content
JudgmentALEX KIPSANG KIPTOO Vs HELLEN MEUT2 min read

ALEX KIPSANG KIPTOO Vs HELLEN MEUT

Environment and Land Court at Kabarnet Environment and Land Court · · Waithaka, Lucy Njoki


  • 1. Through the notice of motion application dated 21st May 2025, the appellant/applicant seeks to arrest delivery of the judgment slated for 22nd May, 2025 and leave to file submissions out of time.

    2. As can be discerned from the grounds on the face of the application and the affidavit sworn in support, the application is postulated on the grounds that the court had directed parties to file their submissions within specific timelines but owing to unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, the appellant’s Counsel failed to comply with the set timelines for filing written submissions.

    3. It is their contention that the delay was not deliberate and that the appellant stands to suffer great prejudice. The applicant urges the court to allow the application to protect their right to a fair trial which is guaranteed under the Constitution.

    4. The application is not opposed.

    Analysis and determination.
    5. I have considered the application, the grounds advanced in support thereof   and I find the sole issue for the court’s determination to be whether the applicant has made up a case for being granted the orders sought.

    6. To be granted the orders sought, the court considers whether a good and sufficient reason has been advanced by the applicant to warrant such an order. See the case of, Boniface Kivindyo Mutisya v Alfred Kavila Kivindyo & 2 others [2018] Eklr.

    7. Perusal of the court file reveals that on 8th April, 2024 the court was informed of the death of Mr. Tarus, an advocate and County Attorney Baringo County, who was working closely with Ms. Mukoit. On account of the bereavement, the appellant/applicant was not able to file submissions within the timelines given. For the above reason, the court extended time by 7 days to enable the appellant file submissions. On 22nd May, 2025 when the matter came for mention to confirm filing of submissions, the appellant’s Counsel informed the court that she had not filed submissions but had instead filed the instant application.

    8. I have considered the circumstances of this case and taken into consideration what was happening during that period. There are many intricacies that come with bereavement which can affect normal operations and I think is what the applicant refers to as ‘unavoidable and personal circumstances beyond control’. The court is satisfied with the explanation given and finds this as sufficient and good reason to arrest the judgment.


    9. Consequently, l find the application merited and l allow prayer 1 and 2.

    10. The applicant is granted leave of 7 days from the date of delivery of this ruling to file submissions for the appeal. Upon service the respondent may file supplementary submissions if need be.

    11. Orders accordingly.

    Dated, signed and delivered virtually this 9th June, 2025.

  • Ruling delivered virtually in the absence of:
    Ms. Mukoit for the appellant/Applicant
    Mr. Kemboi for the Respondent
    Court Assistant: Lilian/Christine




    ALEX KIPSANG KIPTOO Vs HELLEN MEUT ALEX KIPSANG KIPTOO Vs HELLEN MEUT