Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowed· [2025] KEELC 7294 (KLR)

Westpointe Reality Limited & 2 others v Salat (Environment and Land Appeal E059 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7294 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
28 October 2025
2,907 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court reinstated a four-year-stalled appeal because the lower court's incomplete judgment explained the delay, giving the appellants 60 days to move.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling disposes of a Notice of Motion dated 22/6/2025 brought by the Appellants under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking review and setting aside of the court's ruling of 19/6/2025 dismissing their appeal for want of prosecution, reinstatement of the appeal, and costs in the cause. The Appellants argued that their Replying Afidavit dated 16/6/2025 and submissions had not been considered because the court deemed the motion undefended, and that the incomplete judgment of the lower court delayed filing of the record of appeal. The Respondent, Bashir Bille Salat, opposed, contending the Appellants were indolent, filed their response out of time contrary to directions requiring filing by 18/4/2025, and that the delay of over four years prejudiced his enjoyment of the judgment. The court framed one issue: whether to allow review of the 19/6/2025 ruling. It reviewed Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and authorities on error apparent on the face of the record. It held that the late filing did not constitute such an error, as the court could not be blamed for ignoring documents filed in disobedience of directions. However, the Deputy Registrar's order of 14/3/24 confirming the lower court judgment was incomplete satisfied the court that the Appellants explained the delay. Invoking Article 159(2)(d) and finding no uncompenble prejudice to the Respondent, the court allowed the application, set aside the ruling of 19/6/2025, reinstated the appeal, directed filing of the record of appeal within 60 days failing which the orders lapse, and awarded the Respondent throw-away costs of Kshs 30,000/-.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 19/6/2025 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution should be reviewed and set aside

Holding

The application for review was allowed; the ruling and orders of 19/6/2025 were set aside and the appeal reinstated, with the applicants to file the record of appeal within 60 days

Reasoning

Although the applicants filed their replying affidavit and submissions out of time and the court was entitled to disregard them, the incomplete judgment in the lower court, evidenced by the Deputy Registrar's order of 14/3/24, explained the delay in prosecuting the appeal. Guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court found the delay explained, no uncompensable prejudice demonstrated, and substantive justice favoured reinstating the appeal.

p. 6
02

Whether the applicants' pleadings filed out of time created an error apparent on the face of the record

Holding

The court was not in error in failing to consider documents filed out of time and in disobedience of directions; the proper course was to seek leave to file them out of time

Reasoning

The response and submissions were filed on 16/6/2025, well past the 18/4/2025 deadline. The court held the applicants could not blame the court for ignoring pleadings filed in clear disobedience of court directions, and ideally such documents ought to be struck out.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Review lies on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason
  • Prolonged delay alone should not prevent a court from doing substantive justice to all parties; the court is not assisting the indolent but serving the interest of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 22/6/25 is hereby allowed
  2. 2.The ruling delivered on 19/6/2025 and the orders resulting from it are set aside and the appeal filed through the memorandum of appeal dated 17/8/21 is reinstated
  3. 3.The appellants/applicants to file their record of appeal within 60 days from the date of the Ruling, in default the orders shall lapse automatically
  4. 4.The Appellants/Applicants shall pay throw-away costs in the sum of Kshs 30,000/- in favour of the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 Rule 1
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (7)

  • Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2014] KECA 872 (KLR)
  • Nyamongo & Nyamongo –vs- Kogo
    [2001] EA 170
  • Republic –vs- Medical Practitioners & Dentists Board & Another & another; MIO1 on behalf of MIO2 [a Minor] & another [Interested Party]; Kingángá [Exparte]
    [2021] KEHC 298 [KLR]
  • Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharmal
    [1979] 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047
  • Abraham Mukhola Asitsa v Silver Style Investment Company Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Raila Odinga & 5 Others v. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
    (2013) eKLR
  • Mwangi S. Kimenyi v Attorney General & Another
    Civil Suit Misc. No. 720 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Westpointe Reality Limited & 2 others v Salat (Environment and Land Appeal E059 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7294 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7294/eng@2025-10-28

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