Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 11th June, 2019)· [2021] KEELC 4584 (KLR)

Hamisa Swaleh v Rama Swaleh & Mauwa Swaleh [2021] KEELC 4584 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Mombasa
27 January 2021
1,424 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused a second chance to appeal, ruling that filing an appeal late without permission ends your appeal rights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (C.K. Yano, J) determined a notice of motion dated 11th June 2019 by which the applicant, Hamisa Swaleh, sought leave under Sections 79G and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to file an appeal out of time against the ruling of Hon. T. Lewa (SRM) in RMCC No. 1613 of 2016, in which a preliminary objection on jurisdiction was upheld. The applicant explained that a first appeal, ELC Appeal No. 22 of 2017, lodged on 4th October 2017, had been struck out by the same court on 7th March 2019 for having been filed out of time and without leave, and urged that the resulting delay was not inordinate, that the fault lay with her advocate, and that her intended appeal had arguable grounds. The respondents, through a replying affidavit of Rama Swaleh and grounds of opposition, contended that the court was functus officio, that the application was res judicata, and that the delay of over three years was inordinate and unexplained. The court held that by filing the appeal out of time and without leave the applicant had irregularly but consciously exercised her right of appeal, which was struck out, thereby exhausting the appellate process. Granting leave now would be a second bite of the cherry, an afterthought and an abuse of process, since litigation must come to an end. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether extension of time under Section 79G should be granted where the applicant had already lodged an appeal out of time which was struck out

Holding

The application was dismissed; the applicant, being represented by counsel, consciously filed an appeal out of time and without leave, and upon its striking out the appellate process was exhausted.

Reasoning

The court found that under Section 79G appeals must be filed within thirty days. The applicant filed Appeal No. 22 of 2017 on 4th October 2017, outside the statutory period and without leave, and the court struck it out on 7th March 2019. The court held that the applicant had exercised her right of appeal, albeit irregularly, and thus exhausted the process; permitting the present application would amount to trial and error and an abuse of process. Litigation must come to an end, and for the applicant it ended with the striking out of her appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who irregularly files an appeal out of time without leave, and whose appeal is struck out on that account, has exhausted the appellate process and cannot obtain a second chance through a fresh extension-of-time application; litigation must come to an end.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 11th June, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 95
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rules 1 and 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Patriotic Guards Limited v James Kipchirchir Sambu
    (2018) eKLR
  • Samuel Mwaura Muthumbi v Josephine Wanjiru Ngugi & Another
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 79G, 3A and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rules 1 and 2 (with Order 50 Rule 6) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hamisa Swaleh v Rama Swaleh & Mauwa Swaleh [2021] KEELC 4584 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 11th June, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4584/eng@2021-01-27

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