Sang & 2 others v Kugun & 8 others (Civil Application E043 of 2024) [2025] KECA 739 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to forgive a 19-month appeal delay because the applicants only blamed their lawyer without showing they personally pursued the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants' explanation for the 19-month delay, attributed to their former advocate, sufficed to warrant extension of time
It did not. Apart from receipts of legal fees, the applicants showed no steps to pursue the appeal - no request for typed proceedings or certificate of delay - and inaction by an advocate is not an excusable mistake.
The court applied the Salat and Muringa Company criteria: length of delay, reason, prejudice, and promptness. An applicant must show diligence; blaming an erstwhile advocate for inaction without evidence of the client's own pursuit of the matter does not constitute sufficient cause. The unexplained 19-month delay would prejudice the Interested Parties and offend the need for an end to litigation.
Whether the omission of a prayer for extension of time to serve the letter bespeaking typed proceedings was fatal
The respondents argued it was fatal, citing Chepkuto, but the court did not need to decide the point, dismissing the application on the merits of the delay explanation.
The point was raised in the replying affidavit and submissions, but the court's disposition rested on the implausibility of the explanation for delay and the absence of demonstrated diligence, rendering the procedural-defect argument unnecessary to resolve.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion; the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the court's satisfaction.
- Mere accusation that an advocate was guilty of inaction is not an excusable mistake; the client has a duty to pursue the matter.
- Condonation cannot be had for the mere asking; the applicant must give a full, detailed and accurate account of the causes of the delay and must apply promptly upon becoming aware of the default.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th July 2024 for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Eldoret ELC No. 233 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 4 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sang & 2 others v Kugun & 8 others (Civil Application E043 of 2024) [2025] KECA 739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 24th July 2024 (Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/739/eng@2025-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.