Lowar v Lowar (Environment and Land Appeal 8/[E006] of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2978 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court refused to reinstate a land appeal because the appellant failed to prove good reason for missing court deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application to reinstate the appeal dismissed for non-service of the record of appeal is merited
- 2.Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the dismissal and granting leave for substituted service
Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown for reinstatement of an appeal dismissed for non-service
The application was not merited; the applicant failed the sufficient-cause test
The court traced the procedural history: repeated extensions for filing and serving the record of appeal, culminating in dismissal on 9/10/2025 for non-compliance with service directions. The applicant gave no reasons before dismissal for his difficulties in tracing the respondent; the assistant chief's letter was obtained only after dismissal. There was evidence the respondent resides in Kitale, not Lokichar, and the applicant's further four-month delay in filing the reinstatement application was unexplained. Relying on Ivita -v- Kyumbu, Shah -v- Mbogo and related authorities, the court held the tests were not met.
The applicable principles for setting aside a dismissal order
Setting aside is discretionary, aimed at avoiding injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, but not to assist a party who deliberately obstructs or delays justice
The court applied Order 42 Rules 20 and 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules and authorities including Shah -v- Mbogo and CMC Holdings -v- Nzioki, holding that the discretion exists to prevent injustice but must not reward evasion or delay. It also invoked Article 159 of the Constitution on expeditious dispensation of justice and noted that dismissals help unclog court backlogs. Compliance with court orders is not optional.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application does not relieve the applicant of the burden of showing sufficient cause for the exercise of the court's discretion
- Sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, and the burden rests on the applicant
Court orders
#- 1.Application for reinstatement of the appeal dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules (re-admission of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution), Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the appeal dismissed for want of service
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause, having not complied with court orders on service before the dismissal and having delayed about four months in filing the reinstatement application
Leave for substituted service through a newspaper advertisement
This was consequential upon reinstatement, which was refused
Costs
No order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sufficient cause must be genuine, plausible, logical, and reasonable. Even if reinstated, the applicant does not know where the respondent is.
Compliance with court orders and directives is not optional.
Even where an application is not opposed, such as this one, that does not discharge an applicant from showing suficient cause why the discretion of the court should be exercised in his favor by discharging the burden of proof.
Issues in the judgment
#The body of the ruling refers to an earlier order as dated 16/4/2020 while the appeal was filed on 9/4/2021, an apparent typographical date inconsistency
Paragraph 28 states the applicant waited 'until February 2025' to file the reinstatement application, whereas the dismissal was on 9/10/2025 and the supporting affidavit is sworn 26/1/2026; the year appears inconsistent
The case number and the respondent's name are not stated anywhere in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lowar v Lowar (Environment and Land Appeal 8/[E006] of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2978 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2978/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.