Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Bungoma ELC Appeal No E026 of 2023 was the decision below)

Nalianya v Vincent (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1448 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 2025
1,196 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a litigant to file an appeal 25 days late, blaming his lawyer's failure to communicate the judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application, filed in person, seeking leave to lodge a notice of appeal out of time against the judgment of the Bungoma Environment and Land Court delivered on 14th November 2024, which allowed the respondent's appeal in its entirety, granted a permanent injunction against the applicant and ordered cancellation of the applicant's title to land parcel East Bukusu/North Kanduyi/395. The applicant attributed the delay of about 25 days to his then counsel's failure to communicate the judgment and seek further instructions, only acting after the applicant intervened by letter. The respondent opposed, contending that judgment was delivered in the presence of the applicant's counsel, that the delay was unexplained, and that the application was designed to frustrate an elderly litigant from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. Asike-Makhandia, JA applied the Supreme Court's extension-of-time guidelines in Kenya Revenue Authority v Mount Kenya Bottlers, noting that the considerations are not a closed shop. The court held that a 25-day delay was not inordinate, that counsel's failure to communicate the judgment was a plausible and excusable reason, that the intended appeal may well be arguable, and that the respondent would suffer no substantial prejudice, the hardships cited being the usual pitfalls of litigation, while the applicant faced imminent eviction. The application was allowed as prayed, with costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a 25-day delay in lodging a notice of appeal is inordinate

Holding

A delay of about 25 days was held not to be inordinate

Reasoning

The court computed the delay between delivery of judgment on 14th November 2024 and filing of the application on 18th December 2024 as approximately 25 days and found that such a delay, by any stretch of imagination, could not be termed inordinate.

p. 2
02

Whether counsel's failure to communicate judgment constitutes a reasonable explanation for delay

Holding

Counsel's failure to communicate the judgment and seek further instructions was accepted as a plausible and excusable reason for the delay

Reasoning

The court found the applicant's narration uncontroverted; the mere fact that judgment was delivered in the presence of the applicant's advocate was not a sufficient rebuttal. The reason was held to be unforeseeable, excusable and plausible.

p. 3
03

Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice

Holding

No substantial prejudice was found; the respondent's old age and loss of enjoyment of judgment were the usual pitfalls of litigation

Reasoning

The court held that the applicant has an undoubted right of appeal, that the prejudices alluded to by the respondent are the usual pitfalls of litigation, and that on the other hand the applicant faces real and imminent danger of eviction from the suit property.

p. 3
04

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The court declined to say much, only stating that the intended appeal may well be arguable, to avoid compromising the court that will hear the appeal

Reasoning

The court exercised restraint in assessing arguability so as not to embarrass the court eventually seized of the appeal, merely stating that the intended appeal may well be arguable.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it, including a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of prejudice to the respondent.
  • The extension-of-time considerations are not exhaustive or a closed shop; courts may consider additional factors on a case-by-case basis.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to lodge a notice of appeal out of time
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Bungoma Environment and Land Court (ELC) Appeal
Bungoma ELC Appeal No E026 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for lodging a notice of appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nalianya v Vincent (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Bungoma ELC Appeal No E026 of 2023 was the decision below). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1448/eng@2025-07-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.