Gichia & 3 others v Blasto (Environment and Land Appeal E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6420 (KLR)

The court applied the Omar Shurie factors: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent. On the evidence, the original judgment date did not proceed as the court did not sit, and the applicants were never served with the new date, as evidenced by a Case Tracking System screenshot. Their unawareness of the judgment constituted good and sufficient cause, and an attempt at review did not bar the application.

Relying on Odunga J in HA vs LB, the court held that there is no express bar in the rules to a party who attempted review from appealing, since the rules are subject to the inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The court must determine in each case whether the application advances the ends of justice or abuses court process.

Under Order 42 Rule 6(2), an applicant must show substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and must furnish security. The applicants proved neither the extent of loss they would suffer upon execution nor that the respondent could not mitigate such loss, and they provided no security for the due performance of the decree.