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 September 22, 2022 (Kajiado High Court)· [2023] KEELC 563 (KLR)

Macharia v Ngati (sued as the administrator of the Estate of Rose Munyiva Nzioka) (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 563 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
9 February 2023
1,859 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court at Kajiado refused a businessman's seven-month-late appeal because he couldn't prove his lawyer caused the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Charles Macharia Mwai, moved the High Court at Kajiado by notice of motion dated September 22, 2022 under sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of Kahuya I.M, principal magistrate, delivered in Kajiado CMELC No 160 of 2018. That judgment had granted the respondent a permanent injunction, directed the applicant to vacate the suit property within sixty days, and awarded Kshs 300,000 in general damages for trespass. The applicant also sought that leave operate as a stay of the decree, that the annexed notice of appeal be deemed filed and served, and that the appeal be filed within fourteen days. He attributed the delay to his former advocate's failure to act on instructions, relying on authorities including Stecol Corporation, Belinda Mural, APA Insurance and Edith Gichugu Koine, and invoked articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The respondent opposed, contending the delay was inordinate, the application was an afterthought triggered by execution, and no arguable appeal had been demonstrated. Justice L.C. Komingoi framed two issues: whether the application was merited and costs. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Kerin Salat v IEBC and Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda, the court found the approximately seven-month delay inordinate and unexplained: the applicant produced no affidavit from his former advocate and no evidence of applying for certified copies of proceedings. It also found great prejudice to the respondent, who had commenced execution. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal

Holding

The delay of about seven months was inordinate and inexcusable; the claim that the former advocate was at fault was unproven.

Reasoning

The court held that the applicant's assertion that he instructed his then advocate to lodge an appeal was unsupported: there was no affidavit from the previous counsel and no evidence of an application for certified copies of judgment and proceedings. Following the Salat and Telkom Kenya principles, extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the explanation offered was not convincing.

p. 5
02

Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if leave were granted

Holding

Great prejudice would be occasioned to the respondent, who had waited to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and had already commenced execution.

Reasoning

The court accepted the respondent's submission that the application was lodged only after execution steps had begun, describing the applicant as jostled into action by the commencement of execution. The decree included a permanent injunction, vacation of the suit property and Kshs 300,000 general damages for trespass, which the respondent was entitled to enjoy without further delay.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal filed out of time under section 79G can only be admitted where the applicant demonstrates good and sufficient cause; delay must be explained.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated September 22, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 79G
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 95
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 rule 6
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 48
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (6)

  • Stecol Corporation Limited v Susan Awuor Mudemb
    [2021] eKLR
  • Belinda Mural & 9 others v Amos Wainaina
    [1978] eKLR
  • APA Insurance Limited v Michael Kinyanjui Muturi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Edith Gichugu Koine v Stephen Njagi Thoithi
    (2014) eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Kerin Salat v IEBC and 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda and 996 others
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia v Ngati (sued as the administrator of the Estate of Rose Munyiva Nzioka) (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 563 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of motion dated September 22, 2022 (Kajiado High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/563/eng@2023-02-09

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