"We are appealing" can describe several very different situations. A party may be considering an appeal, asking permission to bring one late, or pursuing an appeal already properly before the court. A buyer or lender assessing disputed land should not treat those statements as interchangeable.
Chege v Adams [2026] KECA 462 (KLR) illustrates the difference. On 6 March 2026, a single judge of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi refused more time to challenge a land judgment in Civil Application E620 of 2025. The ruling concerned an attempted procedural step, not a fresh trial of ownership.
The first gap was already substantial
The intended appeal concerned a judgment delivered on 28 March 2022 in Thika ELC 682 of 2017, involving Kiambaa/Kihara/1023. The 2026 ruling records that the applicant's adverse-possession counterclaim had failed.
The separately read trial judgment, [2022] KEELC 649 (KLR), confirms that result. Paragraphs 51-52 also distinguish its other orders: removal of specified cautions and restrictions, an injunction only against the third and fourth defendants, and counterclaim costs payable by the first and second defendants. There was no main-suit costs award. These were 2022 directions, not proof of subsequent implementation.
At paragraphs 2-4 of the ruling, the court calculated that the notice of appeal should have been lodged by 11 April 2022. The first application seeking permission to proceed late was dated 16 November 2022. The court described that initial delay as 219 days.
Those are the dates and calculation used in this ruling, not a deadline formula for another dispute. Anyone handling a current case needs advice on the applicable rules, orders and filing requirements.
The earlier application had not produced the relief sought
The November 2022 application, Civil Application Nai E427 of 2022, combined requests concerning late filing with a request to stay execution. Paragraph 5 records that, when it came before a single judge on 7 July 2023, the judge remitted it to the Registry for listing before an appropriate bench because of the stay prayer.
That procedural direction was not itself an order granting a stay.
Paragraph 6 records the applicant's account that the earlier application had not been listed before the appropriate bench and had apparently been abandoned, without formal withdrawal. The new motion was dated 27 October 2025.
For due diligence, these distinctions matter. An application can exist without the requested protection having been granted. Equally, describing a file as abandoned does not establish that the court formally disposed of it. Ask for the actual orders and a professionally confirmed procedural position.
Why the court declined more time
The applicant explained that she had been changing advocates after the judgment and appointed new counsel in November 2022. At paragraphs 10-12, the court found no satisfactory explanation for taking more than six months to do so.
It regarded that delay as inordinate and insufficiently explained. Paragraph 13 also considered prejudice to the respondent, including the age of the suit and earlier litigation involving the parties' predecessors.
Paragraph 14 dismissed the motion dated 27 October 2025 with no order as to costs. It did not decide a substantive appeal on adverse possession, award fresh ownership rights or confirm that the register had been changed.
The separate E427 application and older litigation files were not independently read. Their history here remains attributed to the decisions actually read, not a complete court-file review. No later changing order or current registration position was independently confirmed.
Build a record of steps actually taken
When a transaction depends on litigation, request a timeline backed by documents: the judgment, any notice of appeal, applications, orders and evidence of required procedural steps. Keep a requested stay separate from a granted stay, and a planned appeal separate from an appeal whose status has been confirmed.
A change of advisers is also a moment to reconcile the file rather than assume that earlier work protected every deadline. That is a professional case-management task, not something a land-screening report can guarantee.
ArdhiScore can help organise available dated evidence, source citations and unresolved questions about a parcel. It does not lodge appeals, extend time, preserve litigation deadlines or establish that every relevant court file has been found.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Use the available evidence alongside official enquiries and legal advice; this case does not establish that screening would have prevented the missed steps. This article is not legal advice.