Simea Jamin Alfred & 7 others v Esther Nelima Manyasa [2021] KECA 723 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed eight applicants to appeal a land case out of time, showing courts will forgive short, explained delays to reach a decision on the merits.
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 applicants should be granted leave to lodge an appeal out of time against the judgment of the ELC at Kakamega delivered on 23rd June, 2020
- 2.Whether, upon extension of time, the draft memorandum of appeal and record of appeal should be deemed properly filed
Key legal issues
#Whether the application, though citing the wrong Rules (31 & 41 instead of Rule 4), could be considered on its merits
The court held that Rules 31 and 41 are merely procedural, that the proper provision is Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, but that Article 159's non-technicality principle obliged it to consider the application on the merits despite the wrong citation.
The judge deliberately flagged the erroneous invocation as 'purported'. Rules 31 and 41 do not fall for consideration in such an application; Rule 4 is the proper provision. Nonetheless, Article 159 enjoins substantive justice over technicality, so the court proceeded to determine the application on its merits under Rule 4 rather than strike it down for the defective citation.
Whether the delay of about 17-18 days after receipt of certified proceedings, and the late notice of appeal, warranted extension of time
The delay was neither inordinate nor unexplained; it was sufficiently and plausibly explained and therefore excusable, and the intended appeal was arguable, with no prejudice shown by the respondent.
The notice of appeal was filed outside the 14-day period in Rule 75(1) and (2) and required regularization, but the applicants were handicapped by delayed certified proceedings received on 15th October 2020. The application followed about 17-18 days later, which was not inordinate and was excusably explained. The draft memorandum raised arguable grounds including overriding interests, fraud and adverse possession, and the respondent, being undefended, showed no prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the court's discretion, exercised case by case on settled principles.
- The factors governing extension of time are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the opposite party.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants have fourteen (14) days of the date of the reading of the ruling to file and serve the notice of appeal
- 2.The applicants have sixty (60) days from the date of the lodging of the notice of appeal to lodge the memorandum and record of appeal
- 3.No order as to costs, the application being undefended
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court, Kakamega)
- ELC Case No. 21 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (invoked by applicants under Rules 31 & 41 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010)
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 applicants have fourteen (14) days of the date of the reading of this ruling to file and serve the notice of appeal.
The applicants have sixty (60) days from the date of the lodging of the notice of appeal to lodge the memorandum and record of appeal.
The application being undefended there will be no order as to costs.
extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling is dated and delivered at Nairobi though the heading places the Court of Appeal at Kisumu; also, the applicants' stated grievance (a grant of representation confirmed in the deceased's estate) sits oddly with an appeal against an ELC judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kidero v Commissioner, Investigations & Enforcement (Civil Application E082 of 2022) [2025] KECA 260 (KLR)[2025] KECA 260 (KLR)21 Feb 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simea Jamin Alfred & 7 others v Esther Nelima Manyasa [2021] KECA 723 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. 140 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/723/eng@2021-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.