A receipt can appear to show progress while the court record tells a different story. For someone assessing land affected by litigation, the distinction is practical: evidence that money reached an advocate is not necessarily evidence that an appeal reached the court.
In Melihun Hassen Worseme v Habiba Nyambura Abdullahi and two others, Civil Application No. Nai E127 of 2025, the Court of Appeal at Nairobi addressed a missed appeal-filing deadline. President D. K. Musinga delivered the single-judge ruling on 3 October 2025. The official Judiciary collection contains the four-page decision; references below identify its numbered paragraphs.
What went wrong with the filing
The intended appeal concerned the Environment and Land Court's judgment of 20 March 2024 in Case No. 725 of 2016, consolidated with Case No. 325 of 2019. Two applications sought more time to file a notice and record of appeal. This ruling did not rehear the land claims or explain which party should ultimately own the disputed property (paragraph 1).
According to the background recorded by the court, the applicant instructed advocates to appeal. A notice of appeal was filed, and an associate was assigned to prepare and lodge the record. The firm's principal sent the associate money for filing fees and a court deposit after being told that the record had been prepared (paragraph 2).
The associate then produced purported filing receipts. During a later check of the court's tracking portal, the principal discovered that the appeal had not been filed. The Deputy Registrar confirmed that the appeal number appearing on the receipts belonged to different parties and that the receipts were not genuine. A police report followed (paragraph 3).
The source identifies the associate only by initials. This account does not expand that identity or treat the police report as a criminal conviction. The relevant issue here was the explanation for delay in an application for procedural relief.
Why the court allowed more time
The first respondent opposed the application, arguing that a further 17-day delay after the Deputy Registrar's response had not been explained. The other respondents filed no response. The application was therefore not simply an uncontested request to excuse every missed step (paragraph 4).
The judge found that the associate's conduct had caused the delay, describing that conduct as criminal. He noted that the Deputy Registrar's response and the police occurrence record had not been challenged. In those circumstances, he reasoned that an innocent applicant should not suffer because of her advocate's mistake, error or fraud (paragraph 5).
He also found the delay neither inordinate nor unexplained. Having examined the record, including the draft memorandum of appeal, he considered the intended appeal arguable. Although allowing the application could prejudice the respondents, he found greater prejudice in denying the applicant an appeal because of a mistake not of her making. Arguability was a reason to permit an appeal, not a prediction that it would succeed (paragraphs 6-7).
The order and its limits
The applications were allowed. The appeal had to be filed and served within 30 days of delivery of the ruling. Costs were to follow the outcome of the intended appeal, rather than being finally awarded to either side at this stage (paragraph 8).
For a buyer, lender or adviser, the practical question is whether the required filing and service actually happened. This ruling alone does not answer it. Obtain current court records through an advocate; neither a favourable extension nor an apparently official receipt establishes today's litigation position. No subsequent appeal outcome or parcel county is verified here.
For parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence, review ArdhiScore's scope and limitations. It supports informed questions, not guaranteed prevention, clean title or complete coverage, and does not imply access to private banking or registry records. Seek qualified legal advice for the transaction.