Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment and Land Appeal E044 of 2021· [2023] KEELC 19057 (KLR)

Laichena v M'laichena & 5 others

Environment and Land Court
26 July 2023
CNCK Nzili
1,120 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land appeal was permanently dismissed because the owner blamed his lawyers instead of personally tracking court deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Meru (CK Nzili, J) determined an application dated May 4, 2023 by the appellant, Julius Thuranira Laichena, seeking reinstatement of his appeal dismissed on March 22, 2023 (and confirmed dismissed on April 26, 2023) for non-compliance with conditions set on reinstatement, or alternatively extension of time to comply. The appeal was against a judgment of January 28, 2020 in Tigania PMCC No. 7 of 2019. The applicant blamed his advocates, P.M Majau & Co Advocates, alleging he was assured conditions were met only to learn otherwise, and claimed he had unknowingly instructed an unqualified advocate. The 4th respondent opposed, citing the appellant's repeated non-compliance, the advanced age of some respondents, and questioning whether the firm of Ndubi Ondubi & Co Advocates was properly on record. The court traced the history: leave to appeal out of time granted on March 3, 2021; a first striking out for non-compliance on October 28, 2021; a second chance via an application of November 8, 2022; and conditional reinstatement on March 22, 2023 whose 14-day conditions expired unmet on April 6, 2023, with no extension sought. Applying CMC Holdings Ltd v James Mumo Nzioki, the court held the applicant reckless, indolent and disinterested, that the appeal belongs to the litigant not his advocates, and that no good reason existed to review its orders. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether blame shifted to advocates justifies reinstatement after repeated non-compliance

Holding

No; the appeal belongs to the litigant, not the advocates, and there was no evidence of due diligence in choosing the lawyers

Reasoning

The court traced a history of non-compliance: leave to appeal out of time, a first reinstatement, a conditional second reinstatement whose 14-day conditions expired unmet. The applicant blamed his advocates but produced no proof of due diligence, and never sought extension or variation before expiry. His conduct showed recklessness and indolence, and the respondents would suffer continuing prejudice.

p. 2
02

Whether a second reinstatement application deserves leniency

Holding

No; the applicant had already benefited twice from the court's discretion and had driven himself out of the seat of justice

Reasoning

The court noted it had bent over backwards twice for the applicant, including granting leave to appeal out of time in Meru ELC Misc. Application No. E009 of 2020. Litigation must end; the aged respondents had explained prejudice likely to continue if reinstated. The sword of justice cuts both ways, so no good reason existed to review the dismissal orders.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court's broad discretion to reinstate a dismissed appeal is meant to assist a party who suffered injustice or hardship due to an excusable mistake or error, not indolence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated May 4, 2023 stands dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • CMC Holdings Ltd vs. James Mumo Nzioki
    (2004) eKLR

    Discretion to reinstate is intended to help a party who suffered injustice or hardship due to an excusable mistake or error

On appeal from
Principal Magistrates' Court
Tigania PMCC No. 7 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Environment and Land Court on appeal; application for reinstatement and extension of time

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Laichena v M'laichena & 5 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Appeal E044 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19057/eng@2023-07-26

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