Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (Chamber Summons dated 31st December 2024)· [2025] KEELC 4818 (KLR)

Kalume (Suing through Dennis Billy Thuva as Donee with Special Power of Attorney) v Sadaka (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E056 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4818 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 March 2025
1,466 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court refused to extend a 287-day appeal delay, confirming courts only grant extensions when delay is fully explained and loss is shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Billy Thuva, sought by Chamber Summons dated 31st December 2024 for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of Hon. Nang'ea delivered on 19th March 2024 in Kilifi MCELC Case No. 118 of 2018, and for a stay of execution of that judgment. The dispute concerns parcels MN/IV/690 and MN/IV/692 registered in the Respondent's name. The Respondent had won that suit after a review by Hon. Kituku of his earlier judgment; the Applicant, though represented, declined to prosecute his defence. The Respondent opposed the application. E. K. Makori J framed three issues: enlargement of time, stay pending appeal, and costs. Relying on Section 79(G) of the Civil Procedure Act and the Salat and Wambua principles, the court found a delay of 287 days wholly unexplained; the Applicant had addressed the merits of the intended appeal rather than justifying the delay, and so forfeited the equitable remedy of extension. On the stay, Order 42 Rule 6 requires demonstration of substantial loss, which the Applicant's submissions did not address; execution was not shown to irreparably undermine the appeal. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs on 27th March 2025 at Malindi, delivered virtually.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of 287 days in filing the appeal was adequately explained

Holding

The delay was unexplained and excessive; extension of time refused.

Reasoning

Section 79(G) requires an appeal to be lodged within thirty days unless good and sufficient cause is shown. Guided by Salat and Wambua, the applicant bore the burden of explaining the delay. He instead argued the merits of the intended appeal. Nearly nine months passed without justification, so he forfeited the equitable remedy.

p. 3
02

Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss to justify a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6

Holding

No; the submissions did not address substantial loss at all, so the stay was refused.

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6 obliges an applicant for a stay to show substantial loss if execution proceeds. The Applicant's submissions were silent on any loss he would suffer. Without demonstrating that execution would irreparably undermine the appeal, the discretionary remedy could not issue.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal out of time requires the applicant to satisfy the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing in time
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who explains the delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 31st December 2024 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79(G)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6

Cases cited (5)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Korir Arap Salat v IEBC and 7 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Paul Musili Wambua v Attorney General & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kangethe v Kienye & 2 others
    (Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 19899 (KLR)
  • Amina Karama v Njagi Gachangua & 3 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Ibrahim Mungara Mwangi v Francis Ndegwa Mwangi
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Kilifi (Magistrates' Court)
MCELC Case No. 118 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79(G) 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, "Kalume (Suing through Dennis Billy Thuva as Donee with Special Power of Attorney) v Sadaka (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E056 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4818 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Chamber Summons dated 31st December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4818/eng@2025-03-27

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