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 AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 2033 (KLR)

Nichodemus Emuron Lowoton & 1 other v Charles Ejore Lorogoi & 5 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 November 2025
998 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to forgive a seven-month delay in filing an appeal record because the applicants offered no real evidence explaining it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application before the Court of Appeal at Eldoret seeking leave, under rules 2, 4, 74(1) and 76 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, to file and serve the record of appeal out of time against the judgment and decree of the Kitale Environment and Land Court (Nyagaka, J.) delivered on 25th March 2025. The applicants had lodged a notice of appeal but attributed their failure to file the record within time to the transfer of the trial judge to Migori with the court file, which allegedly delayed the typing of proceedings. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents opposed, pointing out that the applicants did not demonstrate when the notice of appeal was lodged and served, did not show when the proceedings were requested or received, did not copy the request for proceedings to them, and did not annex a memorandum of appeal or certificate of delay. Applying the rule 4 factors restated in Karny Zahrya & another v. Shalom Levi [2018] eKLR - the length of and reasons for the delay, prejudice, the parties' conduct, and the prima facie chances of success - Gachoka, JA held that the obligation to explain delay lies on the applicant and that the transfer of the trial judge was a mere general statement insufficient to explain a delay of about seven months. There was no evidence of when the file returned to the registry or that proceedings had been obtained. The application was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondents. The decision below was not disturbed; the intended appeal remains unfiled for want of extension of time.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 7 months in filing the record of appeal was excusable

Holding

The delay was not explained; the applicants failed to show when the trial file was returned to the registry, did not copy the request for proceedings to the respondents, and did not annex a memorandum of appeal or certificate of delay.

Reasoning

Rule 4 confers a discretion to extend time, guided by the factors in Karny Zahrya v Shalom Levi: length of and reasons for delay, prejudice, conduct of parties, and chances of success. The onus lies on the applicant to give good reasons. The sole reason offered - the trial judge's transfer with the file - was a general statement with no evidence of the file's return, of receipt of proceedings, or of a certificate of delay. The applicants approached the court casually, and the delay was unexplained.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for extension of time bears the duty to explain the delay, and the exercise of discretion must be based on good reasons; a general statement that the trial judge went on transfer with the file, without evidence of when the file was returned or that proceedings were obtained, does not suffice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 14th October 2025 is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Costs to the respondents
On appeal from
Kitale Environment and Land Court (ELC)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 2, 4, 74(1) and 76 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nichodemus Emuron Lowoton & 1 other v Charles Ejore Lorogoi & 5 others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2033/eng@2025-11-27

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