Kayser Investiment Limited v Bamburi Special Products Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 534 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6344 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to excuse a delayed costs challenge but stopped execution of the costs decree if the applicant deposits Kshs 471,935 within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file reference
Dismissed; the applicant failed to prove it did not contribute to the delay
The court applied the settled principles on extension of time: length of and reasons for delay and prejudice. Counsel attributed the delay to counsel's error, but the court held that although mistakes of counsel should not be visited on the client, the client must establish non-contribution to the delay, which required an affidavit that was never sworn.
Stay of execution pending appeal
Granted subject to security of Kshs 471,935 to be deposited in court within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses
Jurisdiction is founded on Order 42 rule 6(1), requiring substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. The court found the applicants had an ongoing appeal, the application was unopposed, and conditioned the stay on deposit of the full taxed costs as security for due performance of the decree.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is guided by the period of delay, reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent and whether the matter raises issues of public importance
- While a mistake by counsel should not ordinarily be visited upon the client, it is the client's duty to establish that they did not contribute to the delay
- Substantial loss for purposes of stay pending appeal is the situation where the successful party would be unable to realise the fruits of the appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Stay of execution is granted subject to deposit of Kshs 471,935 in court within a period of 30 days
- 3.In default of the deposit, the orders for stay of execution are to lapse
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (for stay); inherent jurisdiction for extension of time
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kayser Investiment Limited v Bamburi Special Products Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 534 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6344 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (appeal to Court of Appeal No. E 399 of 2021 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6344/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.