Anyangu v Makwata & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6981 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court let a landowner appeal late because he was never told of the ruling, and froze the land titles for 12 months.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is good and sufficient cause for the court to grant extension of time to the applicant to file appeal out of time.
- 2.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of inhibition.
Key legal issues
#Whether good and sufficient cause existed to extend time to appeal out of time
The three-month delay was excusable because the applicant was unaware the ruling had been delivered, as no ruling notice was served on his advocate, and the respondents continued receiving ruling notices even after delivery of the ruling.
The applicant explained that he and his counsel attended court repeatedly expecting the ruling and were told it was not ready. Ruling notices dated 22nd March and 4th May 2024 were served on the respondents, who did not deny receipt. Given that as late as May 2024 the applicant was unaware of the ruling, the delay was inadvertent and excusable, and the intended appeal raised triable issues since the trial court granted orders not sought in the application.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue over the suit properties
An inhibition for 12 months was granted because the extracted order of 18th March 2024 cancelled the applicant's title - an order never sought or granted in the ruling - showing the suit property was at risk and the intended appeal could be rendered nugatory.
The respondents' application dated 20th November 2023 sought only a stay of judgment, yet the trial court set aside judgment and the extracted order cancelled the applicant's title. This prima facie risk to the substratum of the intended appeal justified preservation of the titles under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act and the court's inherent powers under Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Legal principles established
#- The court has jurisdiction and unfettered discretion to extend time, considering the length of the delay, the reason for the delay and the interests of justice; extension of time is not a right of a party.
- Where the ends of justice require that a particular title be preserved, the court may grant an order of inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 11th March 2024 in Kakamega MCELC Case No. E030 of 2020
- 2.Time extended for filing the appeal; the applicant to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal within 30 days of the date of the ruling
- 3.Order of inhibition stopping further dealings, registrations and transactions on titles for parcels L.R No. S/Wanga/Lureko/717 and L.R No. S/Wanga/Lureko/1138 for 12 months from the date of the ruling
- 4.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
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Kakamega
- Kakamega MCELC Case No. E030 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act
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.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
The delay being three months and in view of the fact that as late as may 2024, the applicant had not been aware of the delivery of the impugned ruling, I am of the view that the reason given by the applicant is excusable and he ought to be allowed to file his appeal out of time.
Therefore, where the ends of justice require that a particular title be preserved for some time, the court has unfettered discretion to order an inhibition.
That this Honorable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order of inhibition stopping further dealings, registrations and transactions on titles for parcels of land known as L.R No. S/Wanga/Lureko/717 and L.R No. S/Wanga/ Lureko /1138 respectively, for a period of 12 months from the date of this ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites two different case numbers for the subordinate court matter, 'Kakamega MCELC Case No. E030 of 2020' and 'Kakamega CMCC No. 30 of 2020', in describing the same impugned application.
The extracted order of 18th March 2024 refers to a mention date of 18/12/23 and a mention date 'stood over to 08/12/24' although the ruling was delivered on 11th March 2024, an internally inconsistent chronology within the quoted order.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anyangu v Makwata & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 28th June 2024 (Kakamega MCELC Case No. E030 of 2020, ruling appealed from). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6981/eng@2025-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.