Joseph Matipe Sankok & Caren Ureto Nairi v Teresa Wanjiru Mwangi [2021] KEELC 3713 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a late land appeal, ruling that COVID-19 court disruptions justified the delay, and paused execution of the judgment meanwhile.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal out of time under section 79G and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act
Extension granted; the Applicants' explanation for the delay (COVID-19 downscaling of court services and receipt of proceedings on 23rd July 2020) was plausible and the intended appeal was not frivolous
The judgment was delivered on 12th May 2020 when courts had downscaled operations due to COVID-19. Time lapsed on 12th June 2020 and the application was filed about one and a half months later. Citing Itute Ngui and Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd v Rose Anyango, the court held the pandemic-related downscaling furnished good and sufficient cause, and a perusal of the draft Memorandum showed the appeal was not frivolous on its face.
Whether to grant stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Stay granted; Applicants satisfied the conditions of substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and willingness to be bound, and the Respondent adduced no tangible evidence of injury
The court applied the Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal principles, noting the Applicants remained on the suit land, the sale to the Respondent was not concluded, and the appeal concerned specific performance. The right of appeal being constitutional, fair hearing could only be guaranteed if a stay issued. The Respondent furnished no tangible evidence of the injury she would suffer if the orders were granted.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be admitted out of time where the appellant satisfies the court that there was good and sufficient cause for not filing in time, and the court may enlarge any period fixed even after it has expired
- Stay of execution requires satisfaction that substantial loss may result, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance has been given
- Downscaling of court services due to the COVID-19 pandemic is a plausible explanation rendering delay in filing an appeal not inordinate
Court orders
#- 1.Applicants granted leave of fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal against the judgment and decree in Kajiado CMCC No. 413 of 2018 delivered on 12th May, 2020
- 2.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Kajiado CMCC No. 413 of 2018 granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates' Court at Kajiado
- Civil Suit No. 413 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 13(1) & (2), 16A(1) & (2) and 19(1) & (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e) & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Rules 42(6)(2) & 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Matipe Sankok & Caren Ureto Nairi v Teresa Wanjiru Mwangi [2021] KEELC 3713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text (application dated 27th July, 2020 arising from Kajiado CMCC No. 413 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3713/eng@2021-04-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.