https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4246

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4246

The court exercised its discretion to enlarge time because the applicant had given sufficient reasons for the delay, the delay of about six months was not treated as inordinate in the circumstances, and the right of appeal should be protected where the intended appeal is arguable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 4246 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Cornel Oyugi Othieno; 1st Respondent: Eliud Ogembo Licensed Land Surveyor No.27; 2nd Respondent: Fred Owino Oduong; 3rd Respondent: Oriang Omondi; 4th Respondent: Henry Onyango Ohanga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application allowed
Judges
["AE Dena"]
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Sufficient Reason, Discretion of Court, Delay in Filing Appeal, Right of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Environment and Land Law Extension of Time Appeal Out of Time Sufficient Reason Discretion of Court Delay in Filing Appeal +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornel Oyugi Othieno

Appellant/applicant

Eliud Ogembo Licensed Land Surveyor No.27

1st Respondent

Fred Owino Oduong

2nd Respondent

Oriang Omondi

3rd Respondent

Henry Onyango Ohanga

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether sufficient reason had been shown to warrant extension of time under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the 6-month delay in filing the appeal was inordinate.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal was arguable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to enlarge time because the applicant had given sufficient reasons for the delay, the delay of about six months was not treated as inordinate in the circumstances, and the right of appeal should be protected where the intended appeal is arguable.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Time enlarged for filing an appeal out of time.
  • Memorandum of appeal to be filed within 14 days from the date of the ruling.