Mary Wanjiku Njoroge v Esther Muthoni Karaya [2020] KEELC 426 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kajiado Environment and Land Court refused to extend time for an appeal and stay execution, holding only the Court of Appeal can grant such leave.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court could extend time for lodging the Notice of Appeal
The prayer was refused because jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal out of time lies with the Court of Appeal, not this Court, and the Plaintiff failed to give proper reasons for the delay.
The Court noted Rule 75(1) and (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act requires lodging a notice within fourteen days. Although the Plaintiff claimed she was unaware of the electronic delivery of judgment, she was represented by counsel and did not file a sworn affidavit from her advocate confirming ignorance of the judgment date. The Court held that under Rule 75 only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal out of time, and accordingly declined the enlargement of time.
Whether stay of execution of the judgment of 26th May 2020 should issue pending the intended appeal
Stay was refused as the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial loss or prejudice.
Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2), the applicant must show substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and furnish security. The Plaintiff had not yet lodged a Notice of Appeal, was not in occupation of the suit land, which was never registered in her name, and did not dispute that her late husband had disposed of it to the Defendant's late husband. The Defendant had obtained a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant as personal representative. The Court found the stay threshold unmet and declined the order.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time; that jurisdiction vests in the Court of Appeal.
- The parameters for extension of time for appealing are discretionary and consider the length of and reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent.
- Stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 10th September 2020
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Wanjiku Njoroge v Esther Muthoni Karaya [2020] KEELC 426 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Kajiado Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/426/eng@2020-12-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.