Kimeli v Rotich
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to extend time for an appeal because an 82-day delay explained only by a lost phone was not good cause.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act for filing the appeal out of time
No; the delay of 82 days was inordinate and the explanation of losing his phone and contact with his advocate was insufficient, especially as his counsel was in court and consented to adoption of the surveyor's report
The order adopting the surveyor's report issued on 26 April 2023 and the application was filed on 15 June 2023, 82 days later. The lower court record showed the applicant's own counsel present and consenting to adoption of the report and marking the matter as settled. Any grievance about counsel's instructions should have been pursued by seeking to set aside the consent order, which was not done.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, granted at the court's judicious discretion to a deserving party
- In considering extension of time, the court considers the period of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the respondent and public importance
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th June 2023 is dismissed entirely with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court at Iten
- Iten MCELC No. E003 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimeli v Rotich", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21166/eng@2023-10-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.