Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 28th March 2024, amended 28th May 2024)· [2025] KEELC 5251 (KLR)

Trustees of the African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa (AIPCA) v Chege (Environment and Land Appeal E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5251 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 July 2025
JOJ. M Onyango
1,631 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Thika refused a church trust permission to appeal 15 months late, meaning the losing judgment can now be enforced against it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, a trust acting through its trustee Eliud Njua Njue, moved the High Court by Notice of Motion dated 28th March 2024 (amended 28th May 2024) seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment in Thika CMCC No. 158 of 2018 delivered on 31st January 2023, together with a stay of execution and an order prohibiting the Respondent from executing that judgment. The underlying suit concerned trespass on land parcel Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/4890; the trial court entered judgment against the Appellant after proceedings at which the Appellant says its advocates were unaware of the hearing date. The Appellant claimed it learned of the judgment only when auctioneers visited its offices, and that service had been effected on its Ruiru branch rather than its headquarters. The Respondent opposed, contending the application was brought inordinately late, that service was proper, and that the intended appeal was not viable. The court identified two issues: whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted and whether execution should be stayed. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu, the court held that the Appellant's delay of over fifteen months was inordinate and unexplained, that the Appellant was vague as to when it learned of the judgment, had not denied service of the hearing and judgment notices, and had admitted service on its Ruiru office. The Nicolas Salat threshold was not met. Having declined extension of time, the court found no basis for a stay. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

Leave refused; the fifteen-month delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the Appellant failed to meet the Nicolas Salat/County Executive of Kisumu threshold.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Supreme Court's principles in County Executive of Kisumu requiring the whole period of delay to be declared and satisfactorily explained. The Appellant was vague about when it learned of the judgment, did not explain why its advocates were unaware of the hearing date, did not deny service of the notices, and admitted service on its Ruiru office. Service on a branch office did not excuse the delay.

p. 4
02

Whether execution of the trial court's judgment should be stayed pending the intended appeal

Holding

Stay refused because it is consequential on the failed application for extension of time.

Reasoning

Since the court declined to enlarge time within which to file the appeal, there was no competent intended appeal on file whose fruits a stay could preserve. The stay and injunction applications therefore fell away with the dismissal of the extension-of-time limb.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant must explain the whole period of delay to the satisfaction of the court.
  • Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act permits admission of an appeal out of time only on good and sufficient cause shown for the delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 18th May 2024 (as amended) is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G

Cases cited (1)

  • County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu and 8 Others
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent discretion to admit appeal out of time; leave application arising from Thika CMCC No. 158 of 2018)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trustees of the African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa (AIPCA) v Chege (Environment and Land Appeal E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5251 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 28th March 2024, amended 28th May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5251/eng@2025-07-14

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