Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNaivasha ELC Appeal dated 13th September, 2024 (filed 26th September, 2024); appeal from CMCELC No. E028 of 2023· [2025] KEELC 3029 (KLR)

Mbaka (Suing as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of the Late Margaret Njoki Mbaka alias Njoki Mbaka) v Bizer & another (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3029 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 April 2025
1,884 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha (M.C. Oundo, EL Judge) on two preliminary objections raised against an appeal from a judgment of Hon Y.M. Barasa, Senior Principal Magistrate, in CMCELC No. E028 of 2023 delivered on 15th August 2024, in which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The Appellant filed his Memorandum of Appeal on 26th September 2024, some days outside the thirty-day window in Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and without prior leave. The Respondents' preliminary objections sought the striking out of the appeal as filed out of time and an abuse of process. The 1st Respondent relied on Catherine Kawira and Hassan Ali Joho, while the Appellant relied on Gerald M'limbine, Ndungu Muhindi James and Samuel v Agricultural Finance Co-operation, explaining that his advocate had first mistakenly filed in the High Court, withdrawn that appeal, and filed the present appeal together with Miscellaneous Application No. E014 of 2024 seeking leave for the memorandum to be deemed filed. Relying on Mukisa Biscuits, the Konchellah decision on the centrality of the replying affidavit, and APA Insurance, the court held that under the proviso to Section 79G an out-of-time appeal is validated by filing it and then seeking leave, not by seeking leave for a non-existent appeal. Finding the pending leave application, the court dismissed the 1st Respondent's preliminary objection and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an appeal filed out of time without leave is properly struck out on a preliminary objection where a application for extension of time is pending

Holding

The preliminary objection lacked merit because the Appellant had, after filing the appeal out of time, moved the court for leave to have it deemed as filed, which the proviso to Section 79G permits

Reasoning

The court applied Section 79G and its proviso, relying on Ndungu Muhindi James and APA Insurance to hold that the correct sequence is to file the appeal first and then seek leave to admit it out of time. Since Miscellaneous Application No. E014 of 2024 sought exactly that leave, the objection based purely on lateness failed. The objection was unopposed by replying affidavit but the submissions and pleadings showed the pending application.

p. 4
02

Whether written submissions can be considered absent a replying affidavit

Holding

The court noted the Appellant's submissions would not be considered in the absence of a replying affidavit, per Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli

Reasoning

Relying on the Supreme Court's holding, the court treated the replying affidavit as the foundational pleading; submissions without it are of no effect. Consequently only the 1st Respondent's unopposed objection was determined on merit, though the court still found it lacked merit on the pleadings and pending application.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An intending appellant seeking admission of an appeal out of time under the proviso to Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act must first file the appeal and then seek leave for it to be admitted out of time; leave is not to be sought for a non-existent appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Respondent's preliminary objection is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G

Cases cited (8)

  • Catherine Kawira v Muriungi Kirigia
    [2016] eKLR
  • Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shabal & 2 Others
    SCK Petition No. 10 of 2013 [2014] eKLR
  • Gerald M'limbine v Joseph Kangagi
    [2008] eKLR
  • Ndungu Muhindi James & Another v Cecilia Wanjiku Waweru
    [2020] KEHC 1535 (KLR)
  • Samuel v Agricultural Finance Co-operation & another
    (Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 16028 (KLR) (28 February 2023) (Ruling)
  • Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd –v- West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) EA. 696
  • APA Insurance Limited v Michael Kinyanjui Muturi
    [2016] eKLR
On appeal from
Senior Principal Magistrate's Court (Hon Y.M. Barasa, SPM)
CMCELC No. E028 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (appeal from subordinate court to the High Court/ELC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbaka (Suing as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of the Late Margaret Njoki Mbaka alias Njoki Mbaka) v Bizer & another (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2024)  (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3029 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Naivasha ELC Appeal dated 13th September, 2024 (filed 26th September, 2024); appeal from CMCELC No. E028 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3029/eng@2025-04-03

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