Ayany v African Banking Corporation Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to extend time to appeal because the party's lawyer had been engaged and costs paid, proving awareness of the judgment.
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 should be granted leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal out of time against the judgment dated 8th May, 2025
- 2.Whether the stay of execution of the judgment dated 8th May, 2025 should be extended pending the intended appeal
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal was merited
The application was declined because the Applicant did not satisfy the grounds for extension of time, having been represented and having paid taxed costs
The court read section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which confers a discretion to extend time even after expiry. However, discretion must be exercised on established grounds. The Applicant was represented throughout, costs were taxed and paid, and thus the claim that it was unaware of the judgment of 8th May 2025 was untenable. The inordinate delay of about five months was unexplained.
Whether stay of execution could issue pending an intended appeal
Refused, because stay pending appeal presupposes an appeal and none existed after the extension of time was refused
The Applicant sought preservation of the substratum of an intended appeal by extending stay of execution of the judgment dated 8th May 2025. The court held that such stay is anchored on the existence of an appeal. Having declined the extension of time and therefore leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal, no appeal existed, and the stay prayer necessarily failed.
Legal principles established
#- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act confers discretion on the High Court to extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal even after the time has expired
- A party who was represented and whose costs were taxed and paid cannot claim lack of awareness of the judgment so as to justify extension of time
- Stay of execution pending appeal cannot be granted where no appeal exists
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th September, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; Order 22 Rule 22 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Articles 50 and 159(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal out of time
The Applicant was represented in the matter, costs were taxed and paid, so it could not claim ignorance of the judgment and did not satisfy the grounds for extension of time
Extension of stay of execution pending the intended appeal
Stay pending appeal is anchored on the existence of an appeal, and no appeal existed since leave to appeal out of time was refused
Costs
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.
Pursuant to this provision, this court has discretion to grant an extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal.
The applicant cannot, therefore, claim not to have been aware of the judgment. The prayer for extension of time is declined.
the prayer for stay of execution of the judgment, which is anchored on the existence of an appeal, cannot succeed in the absence of such an appeal.
I find that the application lacks merit and hereby dismiss it. Costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Louis Omukhulu, and the parties are never fully named in the ruling; the case title above reflects this limitation
Recurrent typographical error rendering 'Plaintiff' as 'Plaintifi'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ayany v African Banking Corporation Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 29th September, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1316/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.