Nyangweso v Ondiek & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3376 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed a land appeal because the appellant sat on required procedural steps and hid a parallel review case from the court.
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 merit in the Notice to Show Cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of compliance with Order 24 Rules 2 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the reasons given by the Appellant for the delay and inaction constitute sufficient cause to spare the appeal from dismissal
Key legal issues
#Compliance with Order 42 Rules 2, 11, 12 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant failed to fix the appeal for directions and to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal as required, and no sufficient cause was shown for the failures
The court traced the procedural history: although the appeal was filed in time and the decree filed as directed, the appellant failed to fix the appeal for directions within 30 days and delayed serving the Record of Appeal until January 2026. The reasons given - delayed payment of fees and counsel's resignation - were unpersuasive since the required steps did not require funds and there was no deposition from the appellant herself. The court found deliberate inaction, as the appellant and an aggrieved party shared the same advocate who had mounted a review application in the lower court.
Candour and non-disclosure of parallel review proceedings
The appellant did not disclose the pending review application and may have misled the trial court about a stay of execution that did not exist in this file
The record showed that counsel for the appellant also acted for an aggrieved party who applied for review of the same judgment on 20 May 2025, a fact never disclosed to this court. Counsel told the trial court that the ELC had stayed execution on 29 May 2025, yet no such stay existed in this appeal file. The court held that equity cannot condone such concealment or possible untruths.
Whether Article 159(2)(d) cures the failure to fix the appeal for directions
That failure alone would be excused under Article 159(2)(d), but the court must still assess the party's entire conduct
The court acknowledged that the appellant's failure to fix the appeal for directions within the 30 days directed on 10 July 2025 was the kind of procedural lapse the constitutional override of substantive justice would cure. However, it held that this was not the end of the inquiry: the court was still obliged to examine the appellant's entire conduct, which revealed deliberate inaction and reliance on the parallel review application rather than prosecution of the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A party's inaction in complying with appellate procedural timelines cannot be excused under Article 159(2)(d) where the conduct shows deliberate inaction and reliance on parallel proceedings
- Equity will not condone a party who misleads the court or conceals parallel proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed for noncompliance
- 2.There shall be no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Rongo (Environment and Land)
- Rongo ELC No. 17B of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under sections 79B and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked
Relief refused
#Excuse of the appellant's noncompliance and continuation of the appeal
No sufficient cause shown; the delay was due to deliberate inaction and inaccurate facts were given
Costs
No orders 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.
The upshot is that therefore the appeal is dismissed for noncompliance. There shall be no orders as to costs.
In essence the appellant is a party who can only rely on being cajoled by the Court all the time.
the appellant is either deliberately untruthful or has other cards hidden under the table and equity cannot condone that.
The court is of the considered view that that reason alone would be one that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution would cure hence he court excuse the party.
the instant appeal was filed in time. The only issues that arose were the inaction in taking the requisite steps as per Order 42 Rules 2, 11, 12 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, to name a few.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to dismissal under Order 24 Rules 2 and 11 in the opening, which appear to be erroneous references to Order 42 Rules discussed later
Typographical/date inconsistencies, e.g. memorandum of appeal stating judgment delivered 16 May 2024 when it was 16 May 2025, and counsel deposing the memorandum was filed 22 October 2025 when the record shows filing on 12 June 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyangweso v Ondiek & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3376 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Rongo ELC Appeal against Judgment in Rongo ELC No. 17B of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3376/eng@2026-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.