Othieno v Ogembo & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4246 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court allowed a six-month late appeal because personal hardship explained the delay, giving the applicant 14 days to file.
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 shown sufficient reason under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of about 6 months is inordinate
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
Key legal issues
#Sufficient reason for extension of time under section 79G Civil Procedure Act
The reasons proffered - the adverse outcome disorienting the applicant, fear for his life forcing relocation, impecuniosity and delay in availing proceedings - constituted sufficient reason.
The court accepted counsel's invocation of the section 79G criteria, guided by the Salat v IEBC decision cited by the applicant. The applicant explained the roughly six-month delay by the traumatic judgment outcome, flight from home for fear of his life, lack of means, and the slow provision of proceedings. On those facts the court found sufficient reason to exercise discretion in favour of the right of appeal.
Inordinate delay and arguability of the intended appeal
A delay of about six months was not inordinate on the facts, and the appeal was arguable.
The court held that each case is decided on its own facts, so the six-month delay was not inordinate. On arguability, it adopted the settled standard that an arguable appeal need not succeed but need only raise grounds that are arguable before the appellate court. Both limbs favoured exercising discretion in favour of the right of appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An arguable appeal need not be one that will succeed; it is enough that it raises grounds that are arguable before the appellate court.
- Delay is assessed on the facts of each case; a delay of about six months was not inordinate in the circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of motion application dated 27/2/2026 allowed and time enlarged
- 2.The Memorandum of appeal shall be filed within 14 days of today's date
- 3.In default of order 1 the leave shall automatically lapse on the 15th day
- 4.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
- Trial Court (not further identified in the ruling)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (extension of time to appeal out of the 30-day period)
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.
I think I will exercise my discretion in favour of the right of appeal. Given the circumstances the delay herein is of about 6 months which I would not render inordinate for each case is decided upon its own facts.
As to arguability of the appeal, an arguable appeal is one that need not succeed but just raise grounds that are urguable before the appellate court.
I will allow the notice of motion application dated 27/2/2026 and enlarge time as follows.
The Memorandum of appeal shall be filed within 14 days of today's date
Issues in the judgment
#Court and case number are not stated on the face of the ruling; parties other than the applicant are unnamed.
Internal date inconsistency: application dated 27/2/2026 but ruling delivered 8 July 2026 with typographical errors in text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Othieno v Ogembo & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4246 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 27/2/2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4246/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.