Naomi Aludi Osieko v Eliud Ogeso, Charles Oguta, Migori County Land Registrar & Migori County Surveyor
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to let a woman appeal five months late because she offered no evidence explaining the delay.
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 satisfied the conditions for grant of leave to file an appeal out of time
- 2.If the answer to (a) above is in the affirmative, whether an order of stay of execution pending appeal should issue
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established good and sufficient cause under section 79G for filing the appeal out of time
No - the applicant failed to prove her allegations of counsel's negligence, lack of funds and ill-health, and did not explain the delay from 8th January 2025 to 12th May 2025
The court applied the Salat extension-of-time principles. The applicant admitted learning of the judgment before time lapsed, yet only wrote a letter requesting proceedings on 8th January 2025 instead of filing the extension application, waiting until 12th May 2025. Allegations against her former advocate and of ill-health were unsupported by any evidence, leaving the burden undischarged.
Whether stay of execution pending appeal should issue under Order 42 Rule 6
The prayer fell with the refusal of extension of time and was not granted
Stay pending appeal is premised on a filed or permitted appeal. Having declined leave to appeal out of time, the court held the stay prayer had no foundation and dismissed it without further analysis of substantial loss, security or promptness.
Who should bear the costs of the application
Each party to bear their own costs, the court exercising discretion under section 27 in light of the possibly true but unproved allegations of the applicant's age and ill-health
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the judge noted the unproved allegations that the applicant is an elderly lady who is unwell and, granting they may be true, exercised discretion to make no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, not a right of a party
- Whether delay is inordinate is determined on a case-by-case basis, focusing on justification and reasons rather than length alone
- A party alleging ill-health or counsel's negligence as cause for delay bears the burden of proving those allegations with evidence
- Absence of typed proceedings and certified judgment is not sufficient cause for delay since they are not prerequisites to filing an appeal in the High Court
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's prayer for leave to file an appeal out of time is declined
- 2.The prayer for stay of execution pending appeal falls and is not granted
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Migori (trial court)
- Migori MCELC Case No. 31 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6, Order 45 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of 5th December 2024
The reasons for the delay were not plausible and did not constitute good and sufficient cause; the delay was inordinate and unexplained
Stay of execution pending appeal
Having declined extension of time, the stay prayer had no foundation
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the application
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.
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
the court does not find the reasons for the delay advanced by the applicant plausible and the same do not constitute a good and sufficient reason. The delay is inordinate and the same has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Having declined the prayer to extend time to appeal out of time, the prayer on stay of execution pending appeal is without legs and equally falls.
I exercise my discretion to order that each party to bear their own costs of the application.
Equity does not aid the indolent.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the trial judgment
Submissions give a different delivery date than the motion
Grounds of Opposition dated 2026, before submissions of July 2026 but over a year after the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naomi Aludi Osieko v Eliud Ogeso, Charles Oguta, Migori County Land Registrar & Migori County Surveyor", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E013 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5600/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.