Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELC 5779 (KLR)

Gichimo t/a Jerusalem Gate Enterprises v Eberhard & another (Sued in their Capacity as Trustees of Baptist Bible Mission of E.A Registered Trustees) (Environment and Land Case 310 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5779 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 August 2025
AOANTONY O. OMBWAYO
760 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court allowed objectors facing an auction to appeal a ruling that dismissed their objection, because their application was prompt and their grounds serious.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Objectors/Applicants, who were joined at the execution stage of a suit in which their property Title No. Ruiru Town/261 was advertised for sale by public auction on 6 May 2025, sought leave to appeal against a ruling of the court (Ombwayo, J) dated 9 April 2025 dismissing their objection proceedings to execution of the decree. Their advocate explained that the impugned ruling had been posted on the court's CTS rather than delivered in the presence of the parties, denying them the chance to orally apply for leave, and that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the auction proceeded. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed, contending the application was overtaken by events and that the issues had been dealt with in earlier rulings of 7 November 2024 and 9 April 2025, with no appeal having been lodged. The court framed a single issue: whether leave to appeal should be granted. Applying Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules, it noted that an appeal as of right required a notice of appeal within 14 days of the decision - a period expiring on 23 April 2025 - and that no notice had been filed, rendering the application 'misplaced.' However, because what was sought was leave to appeal, not leave to appeal out of time, and because the Applicants had no right of appeal, the court found the application timeous and the grounds not frivolous, and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 1 August 2025. No submissions were filed by either party and no express costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to appeal against the ruling of 09/04/2025

Holding

Leave to appeal granted: the application was timeous and the grounds of appeal were not frivolous, even though the application was conceptually misplaced since no notice of appeal had been filed within the 14-day window

Reasoning

The court applied Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring notice of appeal within 14 days. The 14-day period from the 9 April 2025 ruling lapsed on 23 April 2025 and no notice of appeal had been filed, making the application for leave misplaced. Nevertheless, since what was sought was leave to appeal (not extension of time) and the Applicants had no right of appeal, the court exercised its discretion and granted leave.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal from a decision of the High Court/ELC to the Court of Appeal lies as of right and a notice of appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the decision, without need of leave
  • A party with no automatic right of appeal may seek leave to appeal, which the court may grant where the application is timeous and the grounds are not frivolous

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Applicants to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the ruling dated 09/04/2025
  2. 2.Application allowed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 75
Jurisdiction invoked
Leave to appeal under Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gichimo t/a Jerusalem Gate Enterprises v Eberhard & another (Sued in their Capacity as Trustees of Baptist Bible Mission of E.A Registered Trustees) (Environment and Land Case 310 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5779/eng@2025-08-01

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