SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Lwangu v Ndote & 23 others (Civil Application E090 of 2025) [2026] KECA 397 (KLR) (5 March 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KECA 397 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
397
Citation
[2026] KECA 397 (KLR)
Decided
5 March 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of timeCoramJM MATIVO
Holding

The Court grants the applicant's application, allowing her to file and serve the record of appeal within 45 days from the date of the ruling.

Facts

The applicant, Sophie Feis Caroline Lwangu, sought leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time against the impugned judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Kitale, which ordered the cancellation of her title for LR No. Trans-Nzoia/Sinyerere/715 and directed it to revert to the Estate of Jeridah Kilisa Ndote. The applicant claimed that she was represented by counsel who failed to advise her on statutory timelines for filing an appeal and instead filed a stay of execution application, which was dismissed, contributing to the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application for leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time is justified
  2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal is reasonable and attributable to factors beyond the applicant's control

Reasoning

The Court considers the applicant's explanation for the delay plausible, including factors such as illness and misdirection by previous counsel. The Court exercises its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal.

Outcome

The applicant is granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal within 45 days from the date of the ruling.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal within 45 days from the date of the ruling.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case