Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (application dated 18/10/2024 arising from Malindi CM Land Case No. 26 of 2018)· [2025] KEELC 3531 (KLR)

Mulewa v Muhambi (Suing as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Charo Muhambi Kaloki) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3531 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya at Malindi
30 April 2025
MNMwangi Njoroge
525 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed a request to appeal late purely because the applicant ignored directions to file written submissions — deadlines and court directions matter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the High Court at Malindi (Mwangi Njoroge, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 18 October 2024 in which the Applicant, through his advocate Kandia Lisamadi, sought leave to appeal out of time against the whole judgment delivered on 28 May 2024 by Hon. J. Ong'ondo (SPM) in Malindi Chief Magistrate's Land Case No. 26 of 2018, which had granted the Respondent exclusive possession and ownership of property LR Number Kilifi/Jilore/154. The Applicant explained that he had filed a memorandum of appeal dated 31 May 2024 together with an application for stay of execution, but inadvertently failed to seek extension of time within that application, and argued that the mistake of counsel should not be visited on the client and that the appeal was arguable. The Respondent opposed, contending that time had not lapsed when the earlier application was filed, that the Applicant only appreciated the omission on 30 July 2024 when served with a preliminary objection, that over two months then elapsed without explanation, and that the application was an afterthought and abuse of process. The court noted that despite directions to file written submissions, neither party complied; the only submissions on file, though headed as relating to the application of 18 October 2024, actually concerned the separate application of 31 May 2024 on stay of execution. The court accordingly dismissed the application dated 18 October 2024 for want of compliance with the court's directions, without determining the merits of the prayer for extension of time. The judgment was delivered electronically at Malindi on 30 April 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted where the applicant failed to comply with the court's directions on submissions

Holding

The application was dismissed on procedural grounds for non-compliance with directions, without determination on the merits of the extension of time prayer

Reasoning

The court directed both parties to file written submissions on the application, but neither complied. The only submissions on the court file were headed as concerning the application dated 18/10/2024, but on perusal their contents related to a different application dated 31/5/2024 on stay of execution. The court therefore dismissed the application for want of compliance with the directions, without pronouncing on the merits of the prayer for leave to appeal out of time.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who disobeys the court's directions to file written submissions risks dismissal of the application for want of compliance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 18/10/2024 is dismissed for want of compliance with the court's directions to file written submissions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 79G, 95
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Malindi
Land Case No. 26 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mulewa v Muhambi (Suing as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Charo Muhambi Kaloki) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 18/10/2024 arising from Malindi CM Land Case No. 26 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3531/eng@2025-04-30

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