County Government of Meru v Kaburu t/a Mwirigi Kaburu & Company Advocates (Civil Application E120 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1689 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a party refused leave to appeal by a lower court can still apply for that leave directly to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether denial of leave to appeal by the superior court below closes the door to applying for leave in the Court of Appeal
No. Rule 11(3) requires leave for an appeal from a reference but does not confine the application for leave to the superior court below; rule 41(1)(b)(iii) of the Court of Appeal Rules expressly contemplates an application for leave to this Court within 14 days of refusal below.
The court rejected a strict literal reading of 'but not otherwise' in rule 11(3). Article 48 and 159(1)(e) of the Constitution protect access to justice, and Article 259(1) favours the interpretation that advances it. Further, rule 41(1)(b)(iii) would be rendered utterly superfluous if leave could never be sought in the Court of Appeal after refusal below. The Mbuvi case relied on by the respondent was distinguished as concerning a party who never sought leave at all.
Whether the delay in seeking leave was inordinate and adequately explained
The delay of about four months between the ELC's refusal of leave and the present application was inordinate, but was adequately explained by counsel's blunder, political upheavals leading to reconstitution of the county's legal department, and related litigation including mandamus and contempt proceedings.
Applying the Mutiso and Mutiso-line factors, the court held that although an advocate of reasonable competence should have known leave was required, a counsel's blunder is not by itself a sufficient reason to refuse extension; nor is it disqualifying. The impeachment of the former Governor and reorganisation of the legal department were relevant considerations, and the amounts at stake, payable from public funds by a county government, implicated great public interest.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The intended appeal is not frivolous: whether the taxation of Kshs. 82,176,731 reflects an error of principle as a manifestly excessive award is an issue worthy of full consideration.
Relying on Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot (Supreme Court), the court noted the object of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is to ensure reasonable fees, maintain professional standards, and prevent exploitation of parties. Whether the award was manifestly excessive and made in disregard of submissions could only be determined case by case, and was properly for the full Court.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 11(3) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order does not bar a party whose application for leave to appeal has been dismissed by the superior court below from seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal itself; rule 41(1)(b)(iii) of the Court of Appeal Rules expressly provides for such an application within 14 days of refusal.
- Parties must not present omnibus applications mixing reliefs reserved for a single judge with those reserved for the full Court; where relief from the full Court is conditional on relief from a single judge, the single judge must be approached first.
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, who bears the burden of justifying the extension, guided by the Mutiso factors.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to the applicant to apply before the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the ruling of the ELC dated 26th June 2024
- 2.The application for leave shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- ELCC No. 027 of 2021 (reference)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time), determined by a single judge under rule 55(1)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Gitahi v Ndumo & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E091 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1577 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1577 (KLR)31 Jul 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Meru v Kaburu t/a Mwirigi Kaburu & Company Advocates (Civil Application E120 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 4th July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1689/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.