Masumbuko & 2 others v Mae (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4248 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Malindi refused to excuse a 72-day appeal delay, ruling that litigants who delay instructing their lawyers cannot blame anyone else.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to extend time to appeal under Section 79G
The extension was refused because the delay of 72 days was attributable to the applicants' own failure to instruct counsel, which is not good and sufficient cause.
The judgment was delivered on 20 August 2024 and the application was filed on 12 November 2024, a 72-day delay. The applicants admitted they were aware of the judgment but delayed giving instructions to their advocate. Relying on Habo Agencies and Bi-Mach Engineers, the court held that parties must follow up their litigation and cannot simply blame advocates. The applicants acted only when execution began.
Whether to grant a stay of execution pending appeal
Stay was refused; the applicants failed to satisfy the Order 42 Rule 6 prerequisites, particularly reasonable delay and sufficient cause.
The court reaffirmed the three prerequisites under Order 42 Rule 6: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. Discretion under Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal should not prevent an appeal, but here the underlying application for extension of time had failed, and the applicants were challenging the execution of a completed sale of land, so no stay could issue.
Costs
Costs awarded to the respondent, the application having failed.
Having dismissed the application as unmeritorious, the court awarded costs to the respondent following the general rule that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Section 79G requires good and sufficient cause; blaming advocates for failure to instruct counsel is insufficient
- Stay of execution pending appeal requires demonstration of substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security
Court orders
#- 1.The entire application is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G 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, "Masumbuko & 2 others v Mae (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4248 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4248/eng@2025-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.