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 AppealAllowedNot stated in judgment (application dated 3rd November 2025)· [2026] KECA 13 (KLR)

Big Tree Farm Limited v Mary Angola Rono & 4 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
22 January 2026
844 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let an elderly landowner appeal ten months late because her lawyer had been struck off the roll, confirming delay alone doesn't kill appeals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Eldoret (Warsame, JA) on an application dated 3rd November 2025 seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal against a judgment of the Environment and Land Court (Nyagaka, J) delivered on 23rd December 2024. The underlying dispute concerns LR No. 8986 (IR 7089/15) in Trans Nzoia County, where the applicant sued 26 defendants for eviction; the trial court dismissed her suit and upheld counterclaims by respondents who had bought portions, paid the purchase price and taken possession, protecting them through constructive trust and proprietary estoppel despite the absence of Land Control Board consent. No notice of appeal was filed within the 14-day period expiring on 6th January 2025, and the application came roughly ten months and eight days late. The applicant explained the delay by her former advocate's striking off from the roll, her advanced age, limited legal understanding, financial constraints and difficulty securing new counsel, supported by a search result and a letter of 31st October 2025 requesting typed proceedings. No replying affidavit was filed. Applying the Salat and Fakir Mohamed principles, the court found the explanation credible, noted that the draft appeal raised substantial questions on constructive trust and proprietary estoppel in land transactions lacking Land Control Board consent, and allowed the application with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time under rule 4

Holding

Application allowed; the 10-month delay was explained by the advocate's striking off and the applicant's personal circumstances.

Reasoning

The court applied the settled Salat and Fakir Mohamed principles: period and reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, prejudice, and public interest. Delay alone is not decisive where a credible explanation exists. The striking off of the former advocate was beyond the applicant's control, and the draft memorandum raised substantial legal questions on constructive trust and proprietary estoppel warranting appellate consideration.

p. 2
02

Effect of a former advocate being struck off the roll

Holding

Circumstance beyond the applicant's control constituting reasonable explanation for delay.

Reasoning

The annexed search result proved the striking off; it was reasonable to infer the advocate could not continue representing the client or file appeals, and communication may have been impossible. The applicant, an elderly litigant of limited legal understanding, also faced difficulty securing new counsel.

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for extension of time is not a right; the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause, and delay alone does not warrant dismissal where a reasonable explanation exists.
  • A litigant cannot be faulted for the conduct or unavailability of an advocate struck off the roll.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court delivered on 23rd December 2024
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Big Tree Farm Limited v Mary Angola Rono & 4 others", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (application dated 3rd November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/13/eng@2026-01-22

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