Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 492 (KLR)

Onyango v Owino (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 492 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
6 February 2025
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
1,153 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court gave a late appellant 14 more days to file an appeal, showing courts will excuse delays when reasonably explained and no one is prejudiced.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, by Notice of Motion dated 9th August 2024 brought under sections 3, 3A and 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 43 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sought leave to appeal to the Machakos Environment & Land Court against the entire Ruling and Orders of Hon. B. Ojoo CM delivered on 22nd April 2024 in respect of three applications dated 27th June 2022, 11th October 2023 and 19th October 2023. In the supporting affidavit, Badia A. Fiona, Advocate, contended that the Applicant was aggrieved by the trial court's decision and that its response and submissions were not considered. The Respondent, though duly served, did not oppose the application, which was canvassed by written submissions. The court identified a single issue: whether leave should be granted. It noted the Applicant had delayed 104 days in filing the Memorandum of Appeal, explained by a dismissed leave application dated 6th May 2024 (dismissed on 28th June 2024) and the time taken to procure proceedings. Applying Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, the Salat principles on extension of time, and the Sokoro Savings decision, and noting the lack of opposition demonstrating no prejudice, the court found sufficient cause and granted leave. The Notice of Motion dated 9th August 2024 was allowed, with the Applicant granted fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the 104-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal

Holding

The delay was sufficiently explained; the Applicant had earlier sought leave which was dismissed, and procuring proceedings took time; the application was unopposed

Reasoning

The court applied Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, the Salat principles and the Sokoro Savings decision. The Applicant explained the delay by a dismissed leave application dated 6th May 2024 and the time taken to procure proceedings. The Respondent, though served, did not oppose, so demonstrated no prejudice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, governed by the principles in Salat v IEBC
  • Where sufficient cause for delay is demonstrated and no prejudice is shown, the court will not bar a litigant from appealing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 9th August, 2024 is allowed
  2. 2.The Applicant is granted leave of fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A, 75
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrders 43 & 51

Cases cited (2)

  • Sokoro Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v Mwamburi
    (Civil Application E032 of 2022) [2023] KECA 381 (KLR)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Subordinate court (ruling by Hon. B. Ojoo CM)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A & 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 & 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onyango v Owino (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 492 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/492/eng@2025-02-06

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