Ngugi) & another v Ali (Environment and Land Case E412 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 29 (KLR)

Rule 61 of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a notice of appeal within 14 days. Applying the Mutiso and Salat principles, the court weighed the length of delay (about 8 months), the reason given (illness and travel abroad for treatment), and the evidence. The medical records were in German without translation, and the only travel evidence was a 19th February 2025 flight, after the 14-day period had lapsed. The applicant had 90 days stay and an advocate on record, so instructing counsel to lodge a notice required little effort. The application therefore lacked merit.

The stay applications under Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 22 Rules 22 and 26 presupposed a competent intended appeal. Since the court found no sufficient explanation for the delay and refused extension of time, any stay pending an appeal that cannot be filed would serve no purpose. The interim stay sought in the 16th July and 19th August 2025 applications fell with the main application.

Review is governed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and may only be granted on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. Relying on the principles in Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya, the court held the applicant attached no evidence of new or important matter justifying review of the orders declining urgency and interim stay, and the application failed to reach the threshold.

The plaintiffs objected that the supporting affidavit bore two different names, Ali Noor Ibrahim and Noor Haji Ali, and questioned its validity. The defendant explained it as a typographical error of counsel and confirmed he signed it. The court elected to ignore the error rather than strike out the affidavit, applying the principle that a mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant.