Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 3228 (KLR)

Mumali v Munyasa & another (Environment and Land Case 210 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3228 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 May 2026
1,024 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court allowed a late appeal because a seven-week delay caused by lack of money was excusable, though the applicant must pay costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a notice of motion dated 28th November 2024 in which the applicant sought leave to file a notice of appeal out of time following a judgment delivered on 23rd September 2024, by which date the notice of appeal should have been filed by 7th October 2024. The applicant attributed the delay of approximately seven weeks to lack of funds to instruct an advocate and asserted that the intended appeal was arguable and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice. The respondent opposed, contending that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, that lack of funds is not a sufficient reason, and that the application was aimed at denying him the fruits of the judgment. The application was disposed of by written submissions. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time. Relying on section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Supreme Court's criteria in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, the court weighed the reason for, and length of, the delay and the prejudice to the respondent. Holding that poverty and financial constraints are a reality for many litigants, the court found the delay of less than two months not inordinate and excusable, and held that any prejudice could be atoned by an award of costs. The application was allowed, leave to file the notice of appeal out of time was granted, the applicant was directed to file and serve the notice within 14 days, and costs of the application were awarded to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time to file the notice of appeal

Holding

The application was allowed. A delay of about seven weeks explained by lack of funds was held not to be inordinate and to be an excusable reason, and any prejudice to the respondent could be atoned by costs.

Reasoning

The court applied section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which confers discretion to extend time, and the Salat criteria from the Supreme Court, considering the reason for delay, the period of delay and prejudice to the respondent. Recognising that many litigants face financial constraints in accessing legal services, the court found the delay of one month and three weeks excusable and not inordinate, held that prejudice could be compensated by costs, and granted leave with costs to the respondent due to the applicant's own delay.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it
  • Financial constraints may constitute an excusable reason for delay where the delay is not inordinate; prejudice to the respondent can be atoned by an award of costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 28th November 2024 is allowed
  2. 2.The applicant is granted leave to file notice of appeal out of time
  3. 3.The applicant shall file and serve notice of appeal within 14 days of the ruling
  4. 4.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents, to be borne by the applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mumali v Munyasa & another (Environment and Land Case 210 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3228 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3228/eng@2026-05-14

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