Jotham Aggrey Anguko Mukhobi v James Obuli Mukhobi & Jairus Harrison Mukhobi
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused an elderly appellant's bid to extend time and have his son act for him, because late appeal documents and old age don't qualify.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal can be granted in the absence of a timely record of appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant's son should be appointed as next friend for the applicant
Key legal issues
#Extension of time for Memorandum of Appeal without timely record of appeal
Prayer struck out as not competently made
Rule 84 requires lodging of both memorandum and record of appeal within sixty days. Granting extension for the memorandum alone where the record was filed out of time and uncontroverted would short-circuit Rule 84's additional requirements. The applicant did not controvert the respondents' averment that the record was filed late.
Appointment of next friend
Declined; the applicant is not a person under disability
Rule 22(3) confines next-friend representation to persons under disability, typically minors or persons of unsound mind lacking legal capacity. Age, health, language difficulty and unemployment do not constitute such disability, and the son can assist without formal appointment. The mechanism must not be misused.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal cannot be granted where the record of appeal was itself filed out of time and no extension is sought for it
- A next friend may only be appointed for a person under disability, i.e. lacking legal capacity such as minors or persons of unsound mind
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers for extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal struck out
- 2.Prayer for appointment of the applicant's son as next friend declined
- 3.Applicant at liberty to pursue the outstanding prayers not properly before the single Judge
- 4.No order as to 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 of Kenya at Vihiga
- Petition No. E014 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (Rule 55 - jurisdiction of a single Judge)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file Memorandum of Appeal
Not competently made absent a similar prayer for the record of appeal, which was allegedly filed out of time and not controverted
Appointment of Gilbert Jairus Ounza as next friend
Old age, poor English, health and unemployment are not attributes of legal disability under Rule 22(3)
Costs
There shall be no order as to the costs of the application, as the dispute herein involves family members.
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 inclined to deny the prayer for extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal in the absence of a similar prayer with regards to the Record of Appeal.
the effect of granting the prayer would be to short circuit and evade the additional requirements of Rule 84 which an applicant who is out of time in filing an appeal may be required to demonstrate with respect to the filing of a record of appeal.
a next friend can only appear for a person who is under disability, and mostly for minors or person of unsound mind.
In the end, the prayers in the applicant’s application that were the subject of this ruling are declined. The applicant is however at liberty to pursue the outstanding prayers which were not properly before me as a single Judge.
Issues in the judgment
#Application date appears as '2nd October 202 (sic)' in the judgment
Conflicting dates for filing of Memorandum and Record of Appeal between narrative and prayers/averments
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jotham Aggrey Anguko Mukhobi v James Obuli Mukhobi & Jairus Harrison Mukhobi", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) No. E063 of 2026 (Formerly KSM Civil Appeal (Application) No. E245 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2062/eng@2026-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.