Munyari v Munyari & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out a land ruling because the trial judge refused an adjournment without properly considering it, ordering the case to be heard afresh.
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 learned judge properly exercised his discretion in declining the appellant's application for adjournment, thereby denying him a hearing
- 2.Whether the appellant was holding title to the suit land in trust for the respondents (not canvassed)
- 3.Whether the respondents' claim was extinguished by the 12-year limitation period (not canvassed)
Key legal issues
#Whether refusal of the appellant's adjournment application was an erroneous exercise of discretion
Yes. Save for the age of the case, all other factors favoured granting the adjournment: the suit was a land matter with extensive ramifications, the appellant had no history of derailing conduct or prior adjournments, the respondents would suffer minimal prejudice capable of mitigation by costs, and the respondents' counsel was not even heard on the application.
The court set out non-exhaustive factors governing adjournment discretion and applied them holistically. The judge considered only the age of the case and summarily rejected the application without hearing the respondents' counsel. Under the United India Insurance principles, the failure to take account of relevant considerations entitled the appellate court to interfere. The constitutional right to a fair hearing under Articles 25(c), 47 and 50(1) reinforced the conclusion.
Whether the appeal on the trust and limitation grounds required determination
No. The appeal succeeded on the hearing ground, making determination of the remaining grounds unnecessary.
The court deliberately began with the right-to-be-heard ground because, if it succeeded, the case would be remitted for hearing and the other grounds would fall away. This sequencing preserved judicial economy and avoided premature findings on the trust and limitation questions.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not readily interfere with a discretionary refusal of adjournment, but may do so where the refusal amounts to manifest injustice or where the judge failed to take account of considerations he ought to have taken into account.
- In deciding whether to adjourn, a court must holistically consider: reasons for the adjournment, nature of the suit, age of the case, conduct of the applicant, prior adjournment applications, views of other parties, and prejudice/proportionality.
- A wrongful denial of an adjournment may amount to a denial of the constitutional right to be heard.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment of the ELC delivered on 21st February 2019 set aside
- 2.Case remitted to the Environment and Land Court, before a judge other than Angima J, for disposal; trial court to determine whether to start de novo or continue from where it had reached
- 3.Matter to be mentioned before the Presiding Judge, ELC Embu, within 30 days for directions for expeditious, priority disposal
- 4.No orders as to the costs of the appeal given the relationship of the parties
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Embu
- ELC No. 33 of 2015 (Formerly Kerugoya ELC No. 406 of 2013)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction; remittal under Rule 33(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Determination of the trust and limitation grounds of appeal
Having allowed the appeal on the right-to-be-heard ground, the court found it unnecessary to canvass the remaining grounds
Costs
No orders as to the costs of the appeal given the relationship of the parties; at trial, each party was ordered to bear his own costs.
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 accordance with the powers of the Court under Rule 33(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, we remit the case back to the Environment and Land Court, before a judge other than Angima J, for disposal.
We set aside the judgment of the ELC delivered on 21st February 2019.
There will be no orders as to the costs of this appeal given the relationship of the parties.
whereas an appellate court would not readily interfere with the exercise of discretion, such court is entitled to intervene where the refusal of an adjournment amounts to manifest injustice.
The right to be heard is a valued right. It would offend all notions of justice if the rights of a party were to be prejudiced or affected without the party being afforded an opportunity to be heard.
A decision in breach of the rules of natural justice is not cured by holding that the decision would otherwise have been right.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the trial judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyari v Munyari & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E021 of 2026 (Formerly Nyeri Civil Appeal No. E013 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1788/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.