Inganji & another v Museve (Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kakamega refused to revive an appeal, holding that knowing about your advocate's death for eight months is no excuse for missing 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 there is a good and sufficient reason to set aside the orders dismissing the appeal made on 26th February 2025 and to extend time to file the Record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the death of the appellant's advocate and consequent inability to retrieve the file constituted a good and sufficient reason to set aside dismissal of the appeal and extend time
No. The appellants knew of the advocate's death by 11th June 2024, were given multiple extensions including a final 60-day indulgence with a default dismissal order, and failed to comply on every occasion without justifiable cause.
The court traced the chronology from filing in 2023, showing repeated non-compliance on consecutive occasions. The explanation that the advocate died immediately after the dismissal orders was contradicted by the record. An eight-month unexplained delay from June 2024 to February 2025 demonstrated lack of intention to prosecute the appeal, so the Salat criteria, particularly explanation of delay and absence of undue delay in bringing the application, were not satisfied.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically, and may only be granted where the applicant satisfactorily explains the delay
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th February 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent power to enlarge time); appeal from a subordinate court (specific court not identified in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the orders of 26/02/2025 confirming dismissal of the appeal, reinstatement of the appeal, and extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal
The appellants had been aware since 11th June 2024 that their advocate was deceased, were granted successive extensions, and never complied with any court order; the claim that the advocate died immediately after the dismissal orders was not the correct position and no explanation was given for the eight-month delay
Costs
The application dated 28th February 2025 was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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.
It is clear to this court that the appellants have all along not had any intention of prosecuting this appeal, as previous time extensions herein have not jolted them to action. In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 28th February 2025, which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
Therefore, the discretion to extend time ought to be exercised judiciously and not whimsically. Extension of time may be granted where the applicant explains to the court’s satisfaction, the reason for the delay.
The record is clear that from the time of filing this appeal, the appellants have never complied with a single court order.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title, case number and names of the parties are not stated anywhere in the extracted judgment; the parties are referred to only as 'the appellants' and 'the respondent'.
The court before which the matter was heard is not expressly named; the coram reads only 'DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA' and the signature block 'A. NYUKURI JUDGE', and the court from which the appeal lies is not identified.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Inganji & another v Museve (Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7291/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.