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 AppealDismissedNotice of Motion dated 30th June, 2025 (Court of Appeal application)· [2026] KECA 211 (KLR)

Njoroge v Odhiambo & 3 others (Civil Application E399 of 2025) [2026] KECA 211 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
6 February 2025
2,072 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused a late inheritance appeal because leave to appeal was never obtained from the High Court first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by Achode JA on a Notice of Motion dated 30th June, 2025 brought under rules 4, 41 and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, seeking leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time against the judgment of the High Court (Odero J) dated 14th August, 2024 in a succession cause, and that the Notice of Appeal on record be deemed duly filed. The applicant attributed a delay of almost ten months to illness, stating she was in and out of hospital for over nine months and only learnt of the judgment in June 2025 upon recovery. The respondents opposed, contending the application was premature because no leave to appeal had been obtained from the High Court, that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that they had already begun implementing the judgment by replacing titles and distributing the estate. The Court identified the more important question as jurisdiction: since the appeal arose from a succession cause, there was no automatic right of appeal and the applicant had not sought leave in the High Court. Following Mungania v Gitonga and Mughal and Rashid v Bhola, the Court held the right of appeal is neither automatic nor absolute and leave must first be sought and obtained. It further found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, applying Papa v Nyabola that sickness without more does not entitle a party to extension of time, and held that granting the orders would prejudice the respondents. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to extend time in succession appeals absent prior leave from the High Court

Holding

The Court had no jurisdiction to grant extension of time because the applicant never obtained leave from the High Court to appeal from a succession cause; there is no automatic right of appeal in succession matters

Reasoning

The Court held this to be the more important question. The appeal arose from a succession cause, so there is no automatic right of appeal. The applicant did not seek leave in the High Court. Following Mungania and Mughal and Rashid, an appeal must lie under any law and where leave is a prerequisite, it must be sought and obtained. Without a competent intended appeal, there was nothing for which leave might be granted.

p. 4
02

Whether the delay of almost 10 months was excusable

Holding

The delay was inordinate and inexcusable; the applicant's illness did not explain how it prevented her from filing an appeal

Reasoning

The applicant attributed the delay to sickness but did not explain how the illness prevented filing an appeal, as she was not bed-bound in hospital throughout. Citing Papa v Nyabola, the Court held that sickness of a party without more does not entitle a party to extension of time absent a showing that the sickness prevented perfecting the right of appeal.

p. 4
03

Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice

Holding

Granting the orders would be prejudicial because the respondents had already replaced titles, taken possession and were distributing the estate after a dispute lasting more than a decade

Reasoning

The dispute was in court for over a decade before judgment. The respondents had undertaken replacement of titles, were in possession of the properties granted to them and were distributing the estate. Granting an extension to a party who took more than ten months to move the Court would be prejudicial; equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

p. 4
04

Parameters for exercise of the rule 4 discretion

Holding

The discretion under rule 4 is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, considering the length and reason for delay, arguability, prejudice, effect on public administration, compliance with time limits, parties' resources and public importance

Reasoning

Relying on Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi, the Court restated that although the rule 4 discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously. The listed factors are relevant but not exhaustive; there is no limit to the number of relevant factors the Court may consider.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • There is no automatic right of appeal from decisions of the High Court to the Court of Appeal in succession matters; leave must first be sought and obtained from the High Court before seeking extension of time to appeal
  • The right to appeal to the Court of Appeal is neither automatic nor absolute; where leave is a prerequisite it must be sought and obtained before an appeal can lie
  • Mere sickness of a party, without proof that the sickness prevented the party from perfecting the right of appeal, does not entitle a party to extension of time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 30th June, 2025 is found to lack merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 41
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 42
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3B

Cases cited (10)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others
    Supreme Court of Kenya Application No. 16 of 2014
  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
  • Vishva Supplies Company Limited v RSR Stone Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • James Akhatioli Ambundo v Lion of Kenya Insurance Company Ltd
    [2017] KEHC 1553 (KLR)
  • Mungania & another v Gitonga
    Civil Appeal (Application) E109 of 2025
  • Mughal and Rashid (suing as the legal representatives of the estate of the late Rashid Mughal) and another v Bhola
    Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2018
  • Odongo and another v Investments and 3 others
    Civil Application E083 of 2023 [2024] KECA 375 (KLR)
  • Papa v Nyabola and another
    Civil Application No. E127 of 2023 [2024] eKLR
  • Munikah (appealing as one of the personal representatives and Executor/Administrator of the Will of the Estate of Alfred Josse Nakaya) v Wangai and another
    Civil Application No. E472 of 2022 [2023]
  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 others
    [2005] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Succession cause (unspecified number)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 4, 41, 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 and Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njoroge v Odhiambo & 3 others (Civil Application E399 of 2025) [2026] KECA 211 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 30th June, 2025 (Court of Appeal application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/211/eng@2026-02-06

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