Karema & another v Kamaru & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3715 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Murang'a refused to let two applicants appeal 18 months late, ordering them to pay the money they owe instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking extension of time and in filing the application was inordinate and whether it was explained
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; the applicants were out of hospital 18 months before filing and had meanwhile frustrated execution, so no good explanation was given
Under section 74G of the Civil Procedure Act appeals to the High Court must be filed within 30 days. Judgment was delivered on 29-12-2023 but the motion was filed on 15-7-2025, over 18 months later. The discharge summary showed the 1st applicant was out of hospital for 18 months before filing, during which he made false promises to settle and frustrated the respondents' valuation efforts.
Whether special circumstances existed warranting extension of time
No special circumstances existed; this being a money decree in a case lasting about seven years, the applicants should settle the decree
The court found no demonstrated special circumstances. The decree was for money had and received, unchallenged since December 2023. Given the pendency of the case since 2019 and the respondents' loss of money and land ten years after the intended purchase, subjecting them to fresh litigation would be neither fair nor just.
Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the application was allowed
The respondents would suffer much prejudice as successful litigants facing fresh litigation after a hiatus of about two and a half years
The respondents had been successful litigants since December 2023 in a case pending since 2019. They lost their money and the land they were to buy in June 2016. Subjecting them to fresh litigation after a hiatus of about 2½ years would be neither fair nor just.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for extension, including a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of prejudice to the respondent
- A party who exhibits bad faith should not benefit from the court's discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 14-7-2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- Murang'a Chief Magistrate's Court
- ELC 36 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (extension of time to appeal; supervisory/appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over subordinate court appeals under section 74G of the Civil Procedure Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karema & another v Kamaru & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3715 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 14-7-2025 (appeal from Murang'a Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. ELC 36 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3715/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.