Korio & another v Korinko & 6 others (Civil Application E017 of 2026) [2026] KECA 539 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let landowners file their appeal late because their former lawyers' negligence, not their own conduct, caused the delay.
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 file and serve the record of appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the reason advanced for the delay (negligence of former advocates) is excusable
- 3.Whether the delay was inordinate and whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether blame for delay attributable to a party's former advocates excuses late filing of the record of appeal
A party cannot be blamed for the tardiness of its former advocates; negligence of erstwhile counsel may constitute an excusable reason for delay.
The applicants gave instructions to their erstwhile advocates to file and serve the record of appeal, but the advocates failed to follow through due to sheer negligence and gave misleading information. The court held that the applicants could not be blamed for their advocates' tardiness, found the explanation excusable, and noted the delay was only a couple of months and not inordinate.
Whether the subject matter of the dispute (land) weighs in favour of granting extension of time
In land disputes, it is appropriate that parties ventilate their dispute through the full appellate process before the right of appeal is extinguished.
The court reasoned that because the subject matter of the dispute is land, it is generally appropriate that parties be allowed to exhaust their right of appeal. This consideration, combined with the excusable explanation, the short delay, and absence of prejudice to the respondents, justified allowing the application.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding an application to extend time for filing an appeal, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
- The discretion to extend time under Rule 4 is unfettered but is circumscribed by principles formulated by the Court over time.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The applicants are granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time
- 3.The record of appeal shall be filed and served within twenty one (21) days of the date of the order
- 4.The respondents will be paid the 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 (ELC)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion to extend time)
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.
In the premises therefore, the application has merit and is hereby allowed. The applicants are granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time.
The said record of appeal shall be filed and served within twenty one (21) days of today’s date. The respondents will be paid the costs of this application.
the applicants cannot be blamed for the tardiness of their former advocates. They have given an explanation that is excusable. The length of delay is a couple of months. It was not inordinate.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korio & another v Korinko & 6 others (Civil Application E017 of 2026) [2026] KECA 539 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/539/eng@2026-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.