Karia v Pere (Environment and Land Appeal 14 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 363 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A six-year delay in pursuing an appeal can't be excused by blaming your lawyer — courts expect litigants to follow up on their own cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application for reinstatement of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution is merited
Not merited; the dismissal was justified and reinstatement refused
The appeal, filed on 6th August 2019, lay unprosecuted for nearly 3 years with no Record of Appeal filed under Order 42 Rule 13(4). The applicant's excuses - Covid-19 and his advocate's neglect - were rejected because courts were fully operational by 2022 and the applicant made no personal effort to follow up. The application came almost 3 years after dismissal and about 6 years of total inaction, and reinstatement would prejudice the Respondent enjoying quiet possession of the suit land.
Whether the blame of an advocate justifies reinstatement of a dismissed appeal
No; the litigant bears a personal duty to follow up his case
Relying on Duale Mary Anne Gurre v Amina Mohamed Mahamood, the court held that suits belong to litigants who must constantly check with their advocates on progress. The applicant offered no evidence of visiting the Court Registry or contacting his advocates, so the failure could not be visited on the Respondent.
Costs of the application
Costs awarded to the Respondent
The application was found unmerited and dismissed entirely with costs, following the general principle that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- Suits belong to litigants, who have a duty to pursue prosecution of their cases and to constantly check with their advocates on progress; a litigant cannot simply blame his advocate
- Dismissal of suits for want of prosecution turns largely on delay; the overriding principle is that there ought to be no delay in the dispensation of justice
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 12th March 2025 is dismissed entirely
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Narok
- Narok CMCC No. 12 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Discretionary jurisdiction under Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 42 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules; this judgment is itself a ruling on an application within an appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karia v Pere (Environment and Land Appeal 14 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 363 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Narok ELCA appeal; application dated 12th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/363/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.