Rayori (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Martin Ochieng Rayori (Deceased) v Bondo & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a late appeal record because the court itself delayed supplying proceedings, confirmed by a Certificate of Delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file and serve the Record of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the Record of Appeal filed on 4th November 2024 should be deemed duly filed and served
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the Record of Appeal was sufficiently explained
Yes; the delay arose substantially from the court's late supply of typed proceedings, confirmed by a Certificate of Delay, and was therefore plausible and satisfactory.
The Notice of Appeal and request for proceedings were lodged timeously on 19th February 2024, but proceedings were only supplied on 19th September 2024, a period of 213 days. A Certificate of Delay corroborated this. The court held the delay was not attributable to the applicant and the explanation was borne out by the record.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The intended appeal is not frivolous; it raises arguable questions on the ELC's jurisdiction under section 26(3) of the Land Consolidation Act and alleged fraudulent registration.
The court declined to make definitive merits findings, holding it sufficient that the applicant identified issues intended to be raised on appeal, including jurisdiction under section 26(3) of the Land Consolidation Act and fraudulent registration of the suit property in the 1st respondent's name.
Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice
No prejudice was discernible; the application was unopposed and interim stay orders were in force in the 1st respondent's favour.
No replying affidavit or submissions were filed despite service. The applicant contended the 1st respondent remains in occupation of the suit property and interim orders of stay of execution are in force in her favour, so the court could not discern any prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- In exercising the Rule 4 discretion to extend time, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the intended appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
- Delay occasioned substantially by the court's late supply of typed proceedings, evidenced by a Certificate of Delay, is sufficiently explained and cannot be wholly attributed to the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The Record of Appeal filed on 4th November 2024 is deemed as duly filed and served within the prerequisite timelines upon payment of the requisite court fees, if any
- 3.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Siaya
- ELC Appeal No. E029 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion to extend time)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That discretion, though wide, must be exercised judicially and on the basis of sound principles.
The delay cannot wholly be attributed to the applicant, having arisen substantially from the time taken by the court to prepare and avail the proceedings necessary for the preparation of the Record of Appeal to the applicant.
Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed. The Record of Appeal filed on 4th November 2024 is deemed as duly filed and served within the prerequisite timelines upon payment of the requisite court fees, if any.
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rayori (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Martin Ochieng Rayori (Deceased) v Bondo & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) E257 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2105/eng@2026-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.