Wangari & another v Ngugi (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E009 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 17 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court allowed late filing of a land appeal because waiting for certified court documents explained the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal
The delay in waiting for certified copies of the judgment and proceedings, with application filed about two weeks after receipt, amounted to sufficient cause
The court found the appellants requested certified copies on the date of judgment and received them on 16th July 2021, filing the application on 5th August 2021. The explanation was uncontroverted and appeared truthful and consistent, falling within the definition of sufficient cause, though filing the appeal while awaiting proceedings would have avoided the delay.
Whether the delay was inordinate
The delay was excusable and not inordinate
Applying Mwangi S. Kimenyi, the court held that inordinate delay depends on the circumstances of each case. Here the delay from judgment to application was explained by the wait for certified copies, and the application followed about two weeks after receipt of the copies, so the delay was not intentional, contumelious or inexcusable.
Whether the Respondent would suffer prejudice if leave was granted
No substantiated prejudice; the respondent's claims were general and carried minimal weight
The respondent alleged prejudice from prolonged delay and wanted to utilise the property, but did not substantiate the prejudice. The court noted the appellants' constitutional right of appeal, tied to the right to fair hearing, cannot be limited.
Whether typed proceedings and a certified judgment are required to file an appeal
They are not required at the time of filing the Memorandum of Appeal, so the appellants were misguided on that point
Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires only a Memorandum of Appeal; under Order 42 Rule 2 the certified copy of the decree may be filed later. Nonetheless the court appreciated the need to read the whole judgment before appealing and accepted the explanation.
Legal principles established
#- Factors for extension of time: length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent
- A Memorandum of Appeal need not be accompanied by the judgment appealed against or the proceedings when filed
- Sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, leaving no unexplained gaps
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Appellants/Applicants to file the intended appeal out of time
- 2.The application dated 5th August 2021 allowed entirely, with costs in the cause
- 3.Appellants/Applicants directed to file the intended Appeal within 14 days of the date of the ruling
- On appeal from
- Kandara (subordinate court, ELC)
- Kandara ELC No. 3 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G, 95 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rules 6 & 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wangari & another v Ngugi (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E009 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 17 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/17/eng@2022-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.