Vipul Jasvantrai Sheth & 1 other v Sampa Investment Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to fast-track a stay application because the applicants waited over four months to file, showing that delay kills urgency claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#The twin considerations governing certification of urgency
Certification of urgency turns on time and consequences: the need to act promptly upon apprehension of harm and the effect of a failure to act promptly
The court distilled two paramount considerations from the authorities: time, denoting prompt reaction to an apprehended event, and consequences, denoting the prejudice that would follow failure to hear the matter urgently. An applicant who waits for an adverse event before moving the court cannot demonstrate genuine urgency, since urgency must be exhibited in the applicant's own reaction to the event.
The duty of an applicant seeking preferential hearing and the role of the certifying advocate
The applicant must distinguish the case from others in the founding affidavit and explain any delay; the certifying lawyer must discharge a conscientious duty, though the certificate does not displace the court's discretion
Because an urgent hearing lets a litigant jump the queue over other unconsulted litigants, the judge must proceed with caution. The founding affidavit must show that delay would render relief ineffectual. The certificate of urgency assists the court but is not a substitute for the court's own discretion, which must be exercised on evidence and fixed principles rather than sympathy.
Application of the principles to the applicants' conduct
A delay of some four and a half months in moving the court defeated the claim of urgency
The notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2022 but the application was filed only in mid-November 2022. The explanations offered — intending to file alongside the record of appeal, and the hearing date not yet fixed — were rejected, since an application for urgent relief does not depend on the appeal having been filed. The applicants failed to move with the alacrity required of a party seeking to gain an advantage over other litigants.
Legal principles established
#- An informal application under rule 49(5) for a matter to be placed before a single judge inter partes must be made within a reasonable time
- Urgency requires prompt action by the applicant; urgency created by a party's own delay until the deadline nears does not qualify
- Where an applicant fails to act timeously, a reasonable explanation for the delay is a precondition to being heard urgently, even where irreparable harm is shown
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to certify the motion dated November 2, 2022 as urgent
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Kwale ELC No 115 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- University of Nairobi v Reuben Ondigu Orodo[2025] KECA 1813 (KLR)7 Nov 2025applied
- Mwaura v County Government of Trans Nzoia (Environment & Land Case 2 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4953 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4953 (KLR)25 Jun 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vipul Jasvantrai Sheth & 1 other v Sampa Investment Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2023). Kwale ELC No 115 of 2021 (appeal thereto; application dated November 2, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/94/eng@2023-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.