Mumali v Munyasa & another (Environment and Land Case 210 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3228 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court allowed a late appeal because a seven-week delay caused by lack of money was excusable, though the applicant must pay costs.
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 the notice of appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause to justify extension of time to file the notice of appeal
The application was allowed. A delay of about seven weeks explained by lack of funds was held not to be inordinate and to be an excusable reason, and any prejudice to the respondent could be atoned by costs.
The court applied section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which confers discretion to extend time, and the Salat criteria from the Supreme Court, considering the reason for delay, the period of delay and prejudice to the respondent. Recognising that many litigants face financial constraints in accessing legal services, the court found the delay of one month and three weeks excusable and not inordinate, held that prejudice could be compensated by costs, and granted leave with costs to the respondent due to the applicant's own delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it
- Financial constraints may constitute an excusable reason for delay where the delay is not inordinate; prejudice to the respondent can be atoned by an award of costs
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th November 2024 is allowed
- 2.The applicant is granted leave to file notice of appeal out of time
- 3.The applicant shall file and serve notice of appeal within 14 days of the ruling
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents, to be borne by the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction 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.
In determining an application to extend time, the court considers inter alia the reason for delay, the period of the delay and the prejudice likely to be suffered by the respondent due to the delay.
I cannot ignore the fact that in our jurisdiction, poverty levels are high and many litigants are not able to access legal services due to financial constraints.
The applicant is granted leave to file notice of appeal in this matter out of time. Therefore, the applicant shall file and serve notice of appeal in 14 days of this ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states it was delivered on 14th May 2026, which postdates the application and responses of 2024/2025; the year appears to be an error for 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mumali v Munyasa & another (Environment and Land Case 210 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3228 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3228/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.