Pambo (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Pambo Aringo) v Ayugi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Jacob Odhiambo Kimori) & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6281 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed a land appeal filed just seven days late, confirming that missing the 30-day appeal deadline without leave removes the court's power to hear the 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 appeal was filed out of time
- 2.if the answer to a) above is in the affirmative, whether the appeal is merited
- 3.who should bear the costs of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal was filed within the 30-day limitation period under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
The appeal, filed 37 days after the ruling of 10th March 2023, was out of time and no leave or extension had been sought, so the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
The ruling was delivered on 10th March 2023. Applying Order 50 Rule 8 (computation excluding the first day, including the last) and Order 50 Rule 3 (where time expires on a Sunday, filing on the next open day suffices), the 30th day was Sunday 9th April 2023, extendable to 10th April 2023. The memorandum was filed on 19th April 2023, seven days late. The record showed no application under the proviso to section 79G for good and sufficient cause. Timeliness goes to jurisdiction, which the court cannot assume.
Consequence of the appeal being filed out of time
The court must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal without considering its merits, following Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited.
Citing Patrick Kiruja Kithinji v Victor Mugira Marete, an appeal filed out of time without leave cannot be cured by the overriding objective in article 159 of the Constitution. Citing Nyarangi, JA in the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' case, jurisdiction must be raised and determined at the earliest opportunity, and a court without jurisdiction must down its tools. Accordingly the merits of the grounds of appeal, including the pecuniary jurisdiction dispute, were not reached.
Legal principles established
#- Filing an appeal from a subordinate court out of time without leave of the court is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by article 159 of the Constitution
- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools immediately
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is dismissed
- 2.The appellant bears the costs of the appeal
- 3.Judgment dated, signed and delivered via the Teams platform this 23rd day of September, 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Homa Bay Chief Magistrate's Court
- ELC E034 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (appeals from subordinate courts to the High Court)
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal and its grounds (including the challenge to the order directing him to file a transfer application)
The appeal was filed out of time without leave, which is a jurisdictional bar
Costs
The appellant, having not succeeded, bears the costs of the appeal
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 Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction over a subject not competently before it. As earlier observed, whether or not an appeal is filed within time is a jurisdictional issue.
In the circumstances, the court has no choice but to down its tools at this juncture. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
The appellant having not succeeded will bear the costs of the appeal.
A question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter was then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it.
an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and neutral citation of this appeal are not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the lower court case number (Homabay CM ELC E034 of 2022) is given.
The names of the parties are not stated in the judgment; they are referred to only by role (plaintiff/appellant, 1st respondent, 2nd-5th defendants).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pambo (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Pambo Aringo) v Ayugi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Jacob Odhiambo Kimori) & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6281 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6281/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.