Pius & 2 others v Odoyo (Environment and Land Appeal E052 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5363 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court gave landowners another chance to file their appeal record after an honest mistake, showing courts value justice over strict deadlines.
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 application for leave to file the Record of Appeal out of time and to set aside/vary the orders of 12th February, 2025 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should set aside or vary its directions of 12th February, 2025 and grant leave to file the Record of Appeal out of time
The application was allowed; the failure to file the record of appeal was attributable to a mistaken belief that the appeal had been consolidated with ELCA No. 9 of 2023, which was a new matter not within the applicant's knowledge when the directions were issued.
The court framed the application as one for review under Order 45 Rule 1(1). Review lies on discovery of new and important matter not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, on error apparent on the face of the record, or for other sufficient reason. The court found that the advocate who was on record when the 30-day direction was made had ceased acting, and the party believed the record filed in the withdrawn appeal sufficed because the appeals were mistakenly taken as consolidated. Upon withdrawal of ELCA No. 9 of 2023, the present appeal was left 'bare', revealing the omission. The failure was found unintentional, and the court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review of an order may be founded on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay.
- Where failure to comply with a court direction was inadvertent and not intentional, the court may in the interest of justice exercise its discretion to allow compliance with a time limit, attaching a default sanction of dismissal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 1st April, 2025 is allowed as prayed
- 2.The Applicants are granted 30 days to file their Record of Appeal, failing which the appeal stands dismissed
- 3.The Appellants have 15 days to file submissions and the Respondent has 15 days
- 4.Leave granted to the Respondent to file a supplementary record of appeal in case the Appellants' record is not complete, to be done with the submissions
- 5.Hearing of the Appeal set for 14th October, 2025
- 6.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates' Court at Mbita (Environment and Land)
- Mbita ELC No. E010 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the court and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for review of orders
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 circumstance, this court in the interest of justice shall proceed to exercise its discretion and allow the Applicants file their record of appeal within the next 30 days failure which the appeal stands dismissed.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the instant application is merited and is therefore allowed as prayed.
Further an application for review may also be made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other suficient reason.
The orders were not made in absence of the parties or granted due to nonattendance of the parties. They were made upon the court hearing the parties' submissions on the issue and issuing directions subsequent thereto.
Hearing of the Appeal on 14th October, 2025. Each party to bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and title of the present appeal are not stated anywhere in the ruling; the lower court file (Mbita ELC No. E010 of 2021) and related appeal (ELCA No. 9 of 2023) are identified only in the affidavit narrative.
The judgment states the direction to file the record of appeal was given on two different dates - 3rd March, 2023 in the replying affidavit and 13th March, 2023 in the court's own findings.
The ruling refers to the application and the appeal interchangeably; the ultimate disposition records divergent timelines (30 days to file the record, 15 days each for submissions) without reconciling the 'file record within 30 days' prayer with the prayer for extension sought 'before parties can filed their written submissions'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pius & 2 others v Odoyo (Environment and Land Appeal E052 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5363 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (appeal arising from Mbita ELC No. E010 of 2021; related appeal ELCA No. 9 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5363/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.