Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 10.8.2020 (leave to appeal out of time; tribunal award of 1.8.2007)· [2021] KEELC 132 (KLR)

Edward Kithela v Janice Kaundu [2021] KEELC 132 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2021
467 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused a man's request to appeal a 2007 land tribunal award 13 years late, ruling that unexplained, inordinate delay forfeits the court's help.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 10 August 2020, Edward Kithera sought leave under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act to appeal against an award in Land District Tribunal Case No. 1 of 2007 delivered on 1 August 2007, on the grounds that he was unaware when the award was read out and that the award was illegal. The respondent opposed. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Naomi Wangechi Gitonga v IEBC, the court held that an extension of time application without reasons for delay is not tenable. The applicant had come to court roughly 13 years after the award. His claim of ignorance was contradicted by the court record showing he was present at delivery of the ruling, and he demonstrated no error in that record. Even accepting that surveyors came to the property in November 2019, he waited a further nine months before filing. Citing David Dachi Akuku v Jane Aketch Ondoro and Article 10(2)(b) of the Constitution, the court reiterated that equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent, and that delay defeats equity. Although the court enjoys discretion under Sections 1A, 1B and 79G, that discretion must be exercised judicially to meet the ends of justice, which here militated against relief. The application was found to have no merit and was dismissed with costs. Judgment delivered virtually at Meru on 20 December 2021 by C.K. Nzili, ELC Judge, with no appearance for the parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for extension of time under Section 79G

Holding

The application failed; the delay was inordinate and the explanations were contradicted by the record.

Reasoning

The applicant took 13 years to seek extension of time. He claimed he was unaware of the award, but the court record showed he was present when it was delivered, and no error in recording his presence was demonstrated. Even after surveyors allegedly came in November 2019, he waited nine months more to file. The reasons did not justify the exercise of discretion.

p. 2
02

Whether equity assists the applicant given the delay

Holding

Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent; delay defeats equity.

Reasoning

Relying on David Dachi Akuku v Jane Aketch Ondoro and Article 10(2)(b) of the Constitution, the court held that a party who delays inordinately cannot invoke the court's equitable discretion, and the ends of justice militated against granting extension of time.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for extension of time where the applicant fails to give reasons for the delay is not tenable and should be dismissed.
  • The court's discretion under Sections 1A, 1B and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act must be exercised judicially and to meet the ends of justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 10.8.2020 seeking extension of time is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (extension of time to appeal against tribunal award)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edward Kithela v Janice Kaundu [2021] KEELC 132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of motion dated 10.8.2020 (leave to appeal out of time; tribunal award of 1.8.2007). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/132/eng@2021-12-20

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