Kide & another v Sawe & 3 others [2025] KECA 1062 (KLR)

Kide & another v Sawe & 3 others (Civil Application E033 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1062 (KLR) (12 June 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 1062 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Court of Appeal at Eldoret

Civil Application E033 of 2025

JM Mativo, JA

June 12, 2025

Between

Philip Pkopus Kide

1st Applicant

Paul Kide

2nd Applicant

and

Simon Kipsang Sawe

1st Respondent

District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer

2nd Respondent

Director Land Adjudication & Settlement

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

(An application for extension of time from the judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Kitale (C.K Nzili, J) dated 26th March 26, 2025 in ELC No. E007 of 2024. )

Ruling

1. Vide application dated April 23,2025, brought under Rule 4, 5(2) 41 & 43 of the Court of Appea1 Rules 2022, the applicants pray for extension of time within which to file and serve an Appeal against the Judgment delivered on March 26, 2017 in Kitale ELC No. E007 of 2024.

2. The application is premised on the grounds listed on the face of the application and the 1st applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on April 23, 2025. The grounds in support of the application are that: - (a) the delay in filing the appeal was caused by their previous advocate who did not act on their instructions and became uncooperative; (b) the delay is explained and as a result is not inordinate; (c) the intended appeal raises triable issues with high chances of success; (d) the respondents shall not be prejudiced or suffer any loss should the application be allowed; (e) the application is made in good faith and has been brought expeditiously and without unreasonable delay.(a)the delay in filing the appeal was caused by their previous advocate who did not act on their instructions and became uncooperative;(b)the delay is explained and as a result is not inordinate;(c)the intended appeal raises triable issues with high chances of success;(d)the respondents shall not be prejudiced or suffer any loss should the application be allowed;(e)the application is made in good faith and has been brought expeditiously and without unreasonable delay.

3. On June 9, 2025 at 15. 05 PM the Deputy Registrar of this Court sent out an amended hearing notice via e- mail informing counsel/the parties herein that the instant application would be heard by way of written submissions and there shall be no appearance of counsel in court or via video link. In that regard, the applicant and the respondent were reminded to comply with the Court’s directions relating to service and filing of submissions before the hearing date.

4. 1. Today, June 12, 2025 at 9. 00AM when the application came up for hearing before me, and as at the time of writing this ruling, none of the parties had complied with the Court’s directions in the hearing notice. The directions were communicated to the parties respective e-mails:xxxx.com,xxxx.com,xxxx.go.ke,xxxx.com,ixxxx.com

5. 1. Rule 58 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 stipulates as follows:“1. If, on any day fixed for the hearing of an application, the applicant does not appear or comply with directions, the application may be dismissed, unless the Court sees fit to adjourn the hearing: Provided that the Court may order that an application may be heard by way of written submissions and where parties have filed written submissions, the court shall consider the submissions.”

6. Pursuant to the above rule, and being duly satisfied that the parties were duly served as herein above stated, and despite being served, they have failed to comply with the Court’s directions, I hereby dismissthe instant application in accordance with Rule 58(1) of this Court for non-compliance with the directions of the Court issued on June 9, 2025.

7. Orders accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. J. MATIVO..............................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR