Oyoo v Sijenyi & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E084 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1637 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to excuse a late appeal because the applicant's explanation for the delay turned out to be false — honesty is essential when asking for more time.
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 has demonstrated good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
The application was dismissed because the applicant's explanation for the delay was false; his advocate was present in court when the ruling was delivered, so the delay of over two months remained unexplained
The court applied Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, which permits admission of an appeal out of time only where the appellant shows good and sufficient cause. Relying on the Salat criteria from the Supreme Court, the court held that the reason for the delay must be explained to the court's satisfaction. The proceedings showed that Mr. Ojwang Agina appeared on 25th September 2025 and the ruling was read out to him, contradicting the applicant's claim that the advocate was hospitalised and unaware of the outcome. As the application rested on falsehoods, the discretion to extend time was not exercised in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court must be filed within thirty days, unless the appellant satisfies the court of good and sufficient cause for not filing in time
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court
- An application for extension of time predicated on falsehoods fails
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st December 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- subordinate court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (extension of time to appeal out of time)
Relief refused
#Leave to file and serve the record of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time
The applicant predicated the application on falsehoods: his advocate was in fact present when the ruling was delivered, so no good and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay was demonstrated
Costs
No order as to costs - "In view of the current state of counsel for the applicant, I make no order as to costs."
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.
Therefore, to obtain leave to appeal out of time the applicant is obligated to explain the reason for delay to the satisfaction of the court, as the discretion to extend time ought to be exercised judiciously.
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.
That being the position, and as the applicant has predicated his application on falsehoods, I find no merit in the application dated 1st December 2025 which I dismiss. In view of the current state of counsel for the applicant, I make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 appear empty in the text; the case title and case number are not stated anywhere in the judgment
The ruling date of the subordinate court is inconsistently referenced; the applicant refers to a ruling on 25th September 2025 while the respondent refers to a ruling of 28th August 2025 and proceedings of 25th September 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyoo v Sijenyi & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E084 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1637 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1637/eng@2026-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.