Okoth & another v Wamaua (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8494 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Siaya refused to excuse a nine-month delay in filing an appeal because the applicants explained it only in submissions, not sworn evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants made out good and sufficient cause for filing the appeal out of time under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
No - the delay of approximately 9 months was not explained on oath and was inordinate
The appeal was due within 30 days of the judgment delivered on 15th May 2024, but the application was filed in February 2025. The applicants merely asserted they had an arguable appeal and did not depone to when they discovered the judgment. Explanations advanced only in submissions, that they lost track of the suit trusting their counsel, could not be considered since submissions are not evidence.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time
The discretion was declined because the applicants were indolent and the delay inordinate
The power under section 79G is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Applying the Salat principles, the delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court. Here the applicants were silent on their whereabouts for nine months, and even considering the unsworn explanation there was no good or sufficient cause. An indolent party must bear the consequences of inaction.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court shall be filed within 30 days, but may be admitted out of time on good and sufficient cause shown
- The discretion to enlarge time under section 79G must be exercised judiciously, applying the Salat criteria including explanation of the delay, prejudice and undue delay
- Submissions do not take the place of evidence
- An indolent litigant must reckon with the consequences of inaction and must follow up how their case is being handled by their advocate
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 7th February 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Parties to bear their own costs
- 3.Leave to appeal this decision is granted if required
- On appeal from
- Siaya Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land)
- C.M.E.L.C No. E040 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okoth & another v Wamaua (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8494 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th February 2025 (arising from Siaya C.M.E.L.C No. E040 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8494/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.