Jesus Celebration Ministry International Registered Trustees (Suing Through its Registered Trustee George Omondi Makokha) & another v Mbai & 9 others (Civil Application E024 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1223 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave land dispute appellants 14 more days to file their appeal, ruling that a misplaced file and honest mistakes shouldn't kill a case.
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 appeal out of time (extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal)
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately three months was inordinate
- 3.Whether the reasons given for the delay (misplacement of the file during the advocates' office relocation and the Christmas recess) were plausible
- 4.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
Key legal issues
#Extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The application was allowed: the delay of about three months was not inordinate given the Christmas vacation, the reason (misplacement of the file during the advocates' relocation) was plausible and supported by documentary evidence, and no prejudice incapable of cure by costs was shown.
The court applied the settled Mutiso factors and their restatement in Fakir Mohamed and Salat. It found the delay not inordinate considering the Christmas vacation, accepted the relocation/misplacement explanation as corroborated by the change in the advocates' address on filed documents, held that mistakes of counsel should not necessarily be visited on the client, and found no prejudice beyond what costs could compensate.
Whether past non-compliance by a party disentitles it from an extension of time
Past conduct is not the sole determinant where a party exercises an undoubted right of appeal, unless contumelious or intended to mislead.
The 1st respondent contended the applicants were perennial defaulters. The court held that where a party exercises an undoubted right of appeal, past conduct, unless contumelious and intended to mislead, may not be the sole determinant factor, citing Janet Ngendo Kamau v Mary Wangari Mwangi and the wider interests of justice in having cases decided on their merits.
Whether mistakes or oversight of counsel warrant extension of time
Mistakes of counsel, including oversight, should generally not be visited on the client where the interests of justice so dictate.
Relying on Shital Bimal Shah v Akiba Bank (citing Murai v Wainaina), Michael Njoroge B. v Vincent Kimani Chege, and Mwangi v Mwangi, the court held that a mistake is a mistake regardless of counsel's experience, that procedural rules should not drive a litigant from the judgment seat, and that courts of last resort should as far as possible give a litigant a chance to be heard on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- The Rules of the Court of Appeal are self-contained; where an express provision of the Rules deals with a situation, that provision must be cited rather than the Civil Procedure Act and its rules, which do not generally apply to the Court.
- The settled factors for extension of time under rule 4 are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, (possibly) whether the intended appeal is frivolous, and whether the respondent will be unduly prejudiced; the list is not exhaustive.
- Whether delay is inordinate is not a matter of arithmetic; all surrounding circumstances, including the reason for the delay, must be considered.
- Arguability of the intended appeal plays a peripheral role in extension-of-time applications where the other conditions are fulfilled.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th January 2026 is allowed
- 2.Time limited for filing and service of the Memorandum and Record of Appeal is extended by a further period of 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Meru ELC Appeal No. E048 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (the court noted the cited provisions, including Article 50 of the Constitution and sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, did not donate the power)
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 Rules of this Court are self-contained and where there is an express provision under the Rules dealing with a particular situation, that provision ought to be cited instead of the Civil Procedure Act and rules thereunder, which do not, generally, apply to this Court.
In other words, in determining whether or not the delay is inordinate, it is not a matter of arithmetic. All the surrounding circumstances, including the reason for the delay must be considered by the Court.
A mistake is a mistake. It is no less a mistake because it is an unfortunate slip.
Unless there is fraud or intention to overreach, there is no error or default that cannot be put right by payment of costs since the Courts exist for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties and not for the purpose of imposing discipline.
I extend the time limited for filing and service of the Memorandum and Record of Appeal with a further period of 14 days from the date of this ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling states the applicants' advocates filed documents in early 2025 showing offices at Rehema Plaza, 2nd Floor, though the decision under appeal was delivered on 13th October 2025 and the Motion dated 16th January 2026 - the chronology of the 'early 2025' filings appears internally inconsistent with the dates elsewhere in the judgment.
The quoted passage from Boniface Njuguna Gakuru contains typographical corruption ('02 principle' apparently intended as 'O2' / overriding objective principle), suggesting transcription defects in the copy of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jesus Celebration Ministry International Registered Trustees (Suing Through its Registered Trustee George Omondi Makokha) & another v Mbai & 9 others (Civil Application E024 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1223 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 16th January 2026 (arising from Meru ELC Appeal No. E048 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1223/eng@2026-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.