Juma & another v Khaki & 2 others (Civil Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1692 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave landowners facing eviction extra time to appeal, ruling that waiting for certified court documents doesn't count against you.
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 have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately two months after receipt of the Certificate of Delay was inordinate and excusable
- 3.Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal
The Court found sufficient cause demonstrated, holding that the delay was not inordinate given the pending certified proceedings and the applicants' documented financial constraints
The Court noted that certified typed proceedings were requested on 8th July 2024 and only availed with a Certificate of Delay on 16th December 2024. The time to file the Record of Appeal therefore began running after receipt of the Certificate of Delay on 16th December 2024, meaning the delay in filing the extension application was only four days beyond the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 84(1). The applicants also annexed correspondence evidencing their financial struggles.
Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
The Court found that no prejudice had been demonstrated by the respondents
The Court considered the sixth principle from the Salat case, which requires consideration of whether the respondents will suffer any prejudice if the extension is granted. The respondents did not demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer. The Court noted that the applicants' families are currently occupying the suit property and face jeopardy of eviction, but ultimately found the respondents had not shown prejudice sufficient to deny the extension.
Reliance on the proviso to Rule 84(1) regarding exclusion of time for preparation of certified proceedings
The Court confirmed that the only requirement for reliance on the proviso is service of a copy of the application for certified proceedings on the respondent
The Court examined Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 and noted that where an application for a copy of the proceedings has been made within thirty days after the decision, the time required for preparation and delivery of the copy is excluded in computing the time for instituting the appeal. The only requirement for reliance on the proviso is service of a copy of that application on the respondent, which the respondents did not contest.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right of a party but an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the Court's discretion, with the burden on the applicant to lay a basis to the Court's satisfaction
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's flow of discretionary favour
- Under Rule 84(1) proviso of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, time taken to prepare and deliver certified proceedings is excluded where the application for the copy was in writing and served on the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicants to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal against the ELC judgment of 1st July 2024 within thirty (30) days of the date of delivery of the ruling
- 2.Each party to meet their own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Mombasa ELCC No. 35 of 2019 as consolidated with Mombasa MISC ELC/E063/2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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.
I am therefore persuaded that suficient cause for the delay in filing the application for leave has been demonstrated by the applicants, and that the delay was not inordinate in the circumstances.
The applicants are accordingly granted leave to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Environment and Land Court (Kibunja J.) on 1st July 2024 in Mombasa ELCC N0. 35 of 2019 as consolidated with Mombasa MISC ELC/E063/2020, within thirty (30) days of the date of delivery of this ruling.
Each party shall meet their own costs of the application.
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;
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Juma & another v Khaki & 2 others (Civil Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1692 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 14th February 2025 (arising from Mombasa ELCC No. 35 of 2019 as consolidated with Mombasa MISC ELC/E063/2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1692/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.