Angweye v Mulemi (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 901 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court gave a party 14 more days to file documents despite a delay, because switching lawyers explained it—but the party paid the costs.
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 applicant has met the threshold for orders for extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for extension of time to file a supplementary affidavit and submissions out of time
The application was allowed. The delay of two months and 18 days was held not inordinate given the change of legal representation and the need for new counsel to familiarise with the matter; no prejudice was demonstrated by the plaintiff, who could seek leave to respond to the memorandum of appeal.
The court applied the Salat principles from the Supreme Court governing extension of time. It found the delay of two months and 18 days after the lapse of the 14 days' leave explained by the change of advocates and the need for proceedings. The plaintiff's claim of prejudice from the draft memorandum of appeal was rejected as he could seek leave to respond. However, because the change of advocate was the major reason for the delay, costs were placed on the defendant under the proviso to Order 50 Rule 6.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay.
- Costs of an application to extend time shall be borne by the party making the application unless the court orders otherwise.
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant is granted leave of 14 days to file and serve his supplementary afidavit together with submissions in regard to the application dated 18th December, 2023.
- 2.Costs of the application herein shall be borne by the defendant.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 have considered the length of the day and the basis for the delay and in my view, I find and hold that since the defendant’s new advocate needed time to familiarize with the matter and file the necessary documents besides obtaining proceedings, the delay herein is not in ordinate and the reason given is apparent.
In the result, I find and hold that the application dated 7th May, 2024 is merited and the same is allowed
The defendant is granted leave of 14 days to file and serve his supplementary afidavit together with submissions in regard to the application dated 18th December, 2023.
Costs of the application herein shall be borne by the defendant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a 'Memorandum of Appeal' and 'grounds of appeal' although no appeal number or appellate court is identified in the ruling, making the procedural context unclear.
Case number and full party names are not stated anywhere in the judgment; parties are referred to only as plaintiff and defendant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Angweye v Mulemi (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 901 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/901/eng@2025-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.