AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 9th December, 2024 (arising from Butali PM's Land Case No. 26 of 2018)· [2025] KEELC 3047 (KLR)
Nechesa v Juma & 3 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3047 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#The High Court let a landowner appeal late because she couldn't afford a lawyer quickly, though she paid the other side's costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the High Court at Kakamega (A. Nyukuri, J) delivered on 2nd April 2025 on a Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2024 by Dina Nechesa, the defendant in Butali PM's Land Case No. 26 of 2018, Raphael Juma & 3 Others v Dina Nechesa. Judgment in the lower court was delivered on 3rd October 2024. The applicant sought extension of time to file an appeal, an interim stay of execution, and costs. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent, Raphael Juma, who contended the application was an afterthought prompted by an eviction notice, that financial inability was a casual excuse, and that the intended appeal raised no substantial issues. The court identified a single issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for extension of time, noting the stay prayer had been overtaken by events. Applying section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Supreme Court's criteria in Salat v IEBC, the court found the delay of one month and one week not inordinate, taking judicial notice that legal services are costly and that many lay persons cannot raise appeal fees quickly; the respondent led no evidence to disprove the claim. The court allowed the application, granting leave to appeal out of time with 14 days to file and serve the appeal, and awarded the costs of the application to the respondents, to be borne by the applicant in line with the proviso to Order 50 Rule 6. The stay prayer was not determined, being spent.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the applicant's delay of one month and one week in filing the appeal was excusable and merited extension of time
Holding
Yes - the delay was not inordinate and inability to raise legal fees was a satisfactory explanation in the circumstances
Reasoning
The judgment was delivered on 3rd October 2024 and the application filed on 9th December 2024, a delay of one month and one week. The applicant explained she could not raise legal fees in time. The court took judicial notice that legal services are not cheap and that lay persons lack the legal knowledge to prepare an appeal. The respondent adduced no evidence to disprove the assertion. In the context of the short delay, the explanation was satisfactory.
p. 4
Legal principles established
#- The power to extend time is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously by considering the length and reasons for delay, the interests of justice and prejudice to the respondent
- Inability to raise legal fees within the appeal period may, depending on the length of delay, constitute a satisfactory explanation warranting extension of time
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant is granted leave to file appeal out of time against the judgment delivered on 3rd October 2024 in Butali MCELC Case No. 26 of 2018
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve her appeal in 14 days of the ruling
- 3.The costs of the application are awarded to the respondents and shall be borne by the applicant
- On appeal from
- Butali Principal Magistrate's Court
- Butali PM's Land Case No. 26 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nechesa v Juma & 3 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3047 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 9th December, 2024 (arising from Butali PM's Land Case No. 26 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3047/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.