https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10819
The court treated the appellant's incorrect filing as an obvious filing error and, in the interests of justice and to preserve the right to be heard, allowed seven more days to file the correct submissions on the appeal, resetting judgment to a later date.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 10819 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kerai Navinkumar; Respondent: Paul Murimu Mugo
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E019 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Directions/compliance in Appeal
- Outcome
- Appellant partially indulged; time extended; judgment deferred.
- Judges
- ["EM Muriithi"]
- Legal Topics
- Filing of Submissions, Compliance With Directions, Mistake by Counsel, Extension of Time, Small Claims Court Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kerai Navinkumar
Appellant
Paul Murimu Mugo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Directions/compliance in Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be allowed to file proper submissions despite filing submissions on a concluded stay application instead of on the appeal
- 2 Whether the late/non-compliant filing was an excusable mistake warranting relief
- 3 How to preserve the appellant's right to be heard while maintaining case management directions
Ratio Decidendi
The court treated the appellant's incorrect filing as an obvious filing error and, in the interests of justice and to preserve the right to be heard, allowed seven more days to file the correct submissions on the appeal, resetting judgment to a later date.
Court Disposition
Appellant partially indulged; time extended; judgment deferred.
Orders
- The appellant is allowed to file relevant submissions on the appeal within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling.
- Judgment in the appeal is reset for delivery on 30/7/2026.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Navinkumar v Mugo (Civil Appeal E019 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10819 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10819 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kerugoya Civil Appeal E019 of 2026 EM Muriithi, J June 25, 2026 Between Kerai Navinkumar Appellant and Paul Murimu Mugo Respondent Ruling 1.By Directions on the Appeal given on 16/4/2026 in the presence of the Counsel for the parties – Mr. Mwanza for the appellant and Ms. Waweru for the Respondent – the Court reserved Judgment in the matter and directed that –“Directions on Appeal 1.The Appellant to file submissions within 14 days. 2.The Respondnet to file submissions within 14 days. 3.Judgment on 25/6/2026.” 2.The appellant did not file the Submissions on the appeal as directed on 16/4/2026. Instead, the the appellant filed subnissions dated 29/4/2026 entitled Applicant’s written submissions in support of the application dated 4/3/2026 urging the application for stay dated 4/3/2026 which was already determined by a Ruling delivered on 9/4/2026 as follows:“ORDERS 18.Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the application for stay of execution dated 4/3/2026 is declined. 19.The costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal. 20.Being a Small Claims Court matter, the appeal shall be expedited to hearing and appropriate directions shall be taken on a date to be fixed in consultation with the Counsel for the parties. 21.The Record of Appeal shall be filed within seven (7 days. 22.Mention for compliance/directions on 16/4/2026 at 2.30pm. Order accordingly.” 3.Although the Court is able to discern from the Appellant’s submision on whether the appeal is arguable that the applicant relies on alleged mistake by “misdiarization by Counsel”, citing Patel v. E.A. Cargo Handling Services Limited [1974] EA 75 where the court held that “The main concern of the Court is to do justice... and to avoid injustice resultin form accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake”, there is no submissions as to how the facts of this case constitute excusable mistake within the meaning of teh patel case, having regard tothe Respondents’ Submissions dated 24/4/2026. 4.In the interst of justice to ensure that that the appellant is heard on his appeal, the Couurt will consider it an obvios error in filing submissions on the application for stay of execution pending appeal, which is alreday determined, rather than on the appeal itself. 5.The Court will, copnsequenlty, allow the appellant to file the relevant Submissions on the Appeal within the next seven (7) days from the date of this ruling. 6.Consequently, Judgment in the appela is reset for delivery on 30/7/2026.Order accordingly. conclusionsDATED AND DELIVERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAPPEARANCES:Mr. Mwanza for the Appellant.Ms. Waweru for the Respondent.