Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal (Application) E240 of 2025· [2025] KECA 2254 (KLR)

Lombelo v Chief of Defence Forces & 2 others

Court of Appeal
19 December 2025
AMA. O. Muchelule
653 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to fast-track a former soldier's appeal, confirming that only truly exceptional cases can jump the hearing queue in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge (in chambers) ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by Muchelule, JA, on an application under Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 seeking an inter partes hearing on the question of urgency, after the judge had earlier declined to certify the applicant's appeal as urgent. The applicant, a former Kenya Defence Forces corporal discharged in 2014, whose constitutional petition in the High Court (HCConst. Petition No. E220 of 2021) was dismissed on 4th February 2025, argued that his appeal should be heard on priority because he must retire at age 54 (he turns 48 in January 2026) and because his school-going children were being affected by his discharge. The respondents filed no response. The court declined the application on two grounds: first, the urgency request was not made together with the appeal and no explanation was given for the roughly one-month delay; secondly, given the Court's insufficient number of judges, matters must queue and only compelling and exceptional cases justify jumping the queue. An applicant for priority must file a comprehensive supporting affidavit demonstrating that delay would place him in an irreversible position beyond what others in similar circumstances would suffer. Applying its prior decision in Mary Njeri Njoroge v George Munene Ndwati, the court declined to revise its order that the matter was not urgent. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Requirements for an application to have an appeal heard on priority

Holding

An applicant must file a supporting affidavit comprehensively setting out reasons and demonstrate that delay would place him in an irreversible position beyond what others in similar circumstances would suffer

Reasoning

The court held that because of limited judicial capacity, matters must queue and only compelling and exceptional cases justify jumping the queue. The applicant must show irreversibility of prejudice if the matter waits, supported by a comprehensive affidavit. The applicant's urgency request was also filed about a month after the appeal without explanation, undermining his claim.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Priority hearing is reserved for compelling and exceptional cases; absent overriding public interest, parties wait their turn based on filing order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Order declining to revise the earlier order that found the matter was not urgent
On appeal from
High Court
HCConst. Petition No. E220 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lombelo v Chief of Defence Forces & 2 others", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Application) E240 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2254/eng@2025-12-19

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