Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment and Land Miscellaneous Application E173 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 15982 (KLR)

Shelter And Cerdit Limited & another v Wanyee & 5 others

Environment and Land Court
9 March 2023
1,992 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court let two companies appeal late over a one-month delay, but refused to pause the underlying case because they showed no real harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, Shelter And Cerdit Limited and Makini Security Services Limited, moved the Environment and Land Court by notice of motion dated September 7, 2022 under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, section 16A of the ELCA and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking leave to appeal out of time against a ruling of the subordinate court delivered June 24, 2022 (with a subsequent order of June 30, 2022) which enjoined the 6th Respondent, Paul Kevin Kinuthia, as 6th Defendant in MCELC 279 of 2021, and a stay of those proceedings pending the intended appeal. The 6th Respondent opposed, arguing the delay of 98 days was unexplained and that no substantial loss would flow from his participation, relying on authority defining 'sufficient cause' and on the sparing approach to stays of proceedings. Applying the factors in Edith Gichungu Koine, the court held the delay of roughly one month was not inordinate, accepted the electioneering-period explanation, and found no compelling reasons to deny the statutory and constitutional right of appeal; it therefore granted leave and extended time by 14 days. On stay, applying Global Tours & Travels, the court found the Applicants had not shown substantial loss and noted the joinder could be remedied by striking out if the appeal succeeded; that prayer was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the 6th Respondent. The application was accordingly partially allowed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Leave to appeal out of time

Holding

Granted; delay of about one month explained by the electioneering period and is not inordinate, and no compelling reasons against extension were shown

Reasoning

Section 79G requires filing within 30 days unless the applicant shows good and sufficient cause. The court weighed the period of delay, its explanation, and prejudice to the respondent. It held the right to appeal is guaranteed by statute and Article 50, and would hesitate to deny it absent compelling reasons, none of which the 6th Respondent provided.

p. 4
02

Stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

Refused; the Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial loss from the 6th Respondent's continued participation in the lower court proceedings

Reasoning

Applying Global Tours & Travels, stay of proceedings is discretionary and granted only in the interest of justice, weighing expeditious disposal, arguability and expedition. The court found no substantial loss would flow from the 6th Respondent's participation and that the impugned joinder can be remedied by striking out if the appeal succeeds.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Delay of approximately one month is not inordinate and does not, without compelling reasons, justify denying a party the statutory right of appeal
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action to be exercised sparingly and only where substantial loss is demonstrated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Applicants to appeal out of time against the Ruling of June 24, 2022
  2. 2.Time to appeal extended by 14 days from the date of the ruling, within which the Applicants shall file and serve their memo of appeal
  3. 3.Prayer (c) seeking stay of proceedings in MCELC 279 of 2021 dismissed
  4. 4.Costs of the application awarded to the 6th Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 79G
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 75
  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 16A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50

Cases cited (7)

  • David Akongo Obilo v Dipen Hasmukhlal Faldu
    [2022] eKLR

    Principles for extension of time

  • First American Kenya Ltd -vs- Gulab P. Shah & Others
    HCC 2255/2000 (2000) IEA65

    Factors: explanation for delay, arguability, compensation in costs

  • FWNM vs SMM
    (2019) eKLR

    Definition of 'sufficient cause' for delay

  • Parimal vs Veena

    Meaning of 'sufficient cause' - diligence and bona fides

  • Kenya Wildlife Service vs James Mutembei
    (2019) eKLR

    Stay of proceedings is grave, exercised sparingly in exceptional cases

  • Edith Gichungu Koine Vs Stephen Njagi Thoithi
    [2014] eKLR

    Factors for extension of time: delay, reasons, prejudice, public importance

  • Global Tours & Travels Limited v Five Continents Travel Limited
    [2015] eKLR

    Test for stay of proceedings pending appeal - interest of justice

On appeal from
null (subordinate court ruling of June 24, 2022 - court not named in judgment)
MCELC 279 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shelter And Cerdit Limited & another v Wanyee & 5 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E173 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15982/eng@2023-03-09

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