Leonard Kamenchu Kairiama v Elijah Maitai Ichicha & 2 others [2021] KEELC 776 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant hid when he learned of the judgment and showed no arguable appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the High Court to extend time for notice of appeal
The court has jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act notwithstanding the parties' reliance on Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Although the motion cited no section of law and parties relied on Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court held substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities and that Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act empowers the High Court to extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal from its own judgment.
Explanation for the delay
The delay of 12 days beyond the 30-day period was not inordinate, but the reasons given were insufficient because the deponents concealed when the applicant learned of the judgment
The letter dated 12.8.2021 seeking a copy of the judgment showed counsel knew of delivery about 14 days after delivery, 14 days before the deadline. The supporting affidavits were evasive on when knowledge was acquired and instructions given, so the court found the delay unexplained to its satisfaction.
Chances of success of the intended appeal
No draft memorandum of appeal was attached and no exceptional technical legal issues were demonstrated; the issue below was a preliminary objection on law concerning exhaustion of land adjudication dispute mechanisms
The intended appeal concerned jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising from an Arbitration Board decision without exhausting mechanisms under Section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act and Section 26(3) of the Land Consolidation Act. The High Court had held a DLASO consent could not confer jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances justified bypassing ADR mechanisms.
Prejudice and public interest
Granting extension would delay the land adjudication process to the detriment of parties and public administration; land disputes must be settled timely and orderly
The dispute arose from a statutory arbitration board under the Land Adjudication Act. Public policy under Article 159(2)(c) and Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act favours ADR and efficient resolution. The delay would impact public administration of the adjudication process and raise no issue of public importance.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court has jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to extend time for giving notice of appeal from its own judgment
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules has no relevance to the High Court when exercising its power to extend time to give a notice of appeal
- Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or statute, not by consent
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion seeking extension of time to give, issue and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 9
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leonard Kamenchu Kairiama v Elijah Maitai Ichicha & 2 others [2021] KEELC 776 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/776/eng@2021-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.