https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1374

Karanja v Wambui & another (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Emma Wangui Kamau - Deceased) & another (Civil Application E423 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1374 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1374 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E423 of 2021 W Karanja, AO Muchelule & LM Njuguna, JJA July 10, 2026 Between Bernard Herman Karanja Applicant and Jane Wambui & Kagunya Kamau (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Emma Wangui Kamau - Deceased) 1st Respondent Teleposta Pension Scheme Trustees 2nd Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time in an intended appeal from the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court at Thika (Gacheru, J.) dated 8th October 2021 in ELC Case No. 570 of 2017 Environment & Land Case 570 of 2017 ) Ruling 1.The subject of the dispute in this matter is the transfer of plot number Thika Municipality Block 9/301 (“suit property”). By a plaint dated 18th May 2017, the 1st respondents sought orders of specific performance to compel the applicant to facilitate the transfer of the suit property to them. Upon hearing the parties, the Environment and Land Court at Thika in ELC No. 570 of 2017 rendered its judgment on 8th October 2021 (Gacheru, J.), where it issued the order of specific performance directing the applicant to transfer the suit property to the 1st respondents and further awarded them costs. 2.Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application dated 28th November 2021, before this Court, where he prayed for extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal of the intended appeal against the judgment and decree delivered on 8th October 2021. That application was heard by Mbogholi, J.A. 3.The matter before us, now, is a reference arising from the decision of (Mbogholi, J.A) made on 1st April 2022, in which the learned Judge rejected an application for extension of time to serve a notice of appeal and intended record of appeal upon the respondents. 4.The matter came before us on 24th March 2026, but neither party appeared on that date. According to the Court record, notices were sent to all the parties on 6th March, 2026, informing them of the hearing date. The notices also included directions for filing submissions, however, our records show that the parties did not comply with these directions. 5.From the application, the applicant is seeking to vary, reverse, or discharge the decision of the single Judge made on 1st April 2022. He is essentially seeking the review of the learned Judge’s decision. 6.The applicant’s request for a full bench, dated 6th April 2022, complies with the timelines prescribed in rule 57(1) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, which reads:“ 57.Reference from decision of a single Judge:1.Where, under the proviso to section 5 of the Act, any person, being dissatisfied with the decision of a single Judge:a.In a criminal matter, wishes to have his or her application determined by the Court; orb.In a civil matter, wishes to have any order, direction, or decision of a single judge varied, discharged, or reversed by the Court, that person may apply therefor informally to the judge at the time when the decision is given or by writing to the Registrar within seven days thereafter. 2.At the hearing by the court of an application previously decided by a single judge, no additional evidence shall be adduced.” 7.The rule gives an applicant the right to approach the Court after the decision of a single Judge by applying informally to the single Judge or by writing to the Registrar within 7 days of that decision. 8.Even without any submissions from the parties or their appearance in Court, the main issue before us is whether the circumstances of this case justify review or setting aside of the impugned decision by Mbogholi J.A. 9.In the case of Simeon Okingo & 4 Others vs. Benta Juma Nyakako [2021] eKLR, this Court set out the considerations to be made by the full bench in the following words:“In an application under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules, as was the one before the learned single Judge of this Court, the single Judge is exercising unfettered discretion, on behalf of the whole Court; such discretion ought to be exercised based on proper principles of law. Therefore, the full bench would only interfere with the exercise of such discretion if it is apparent that the single Judge took into account an irrelevant matter which he/she ought not to have taken into account or failed to take into account a relevant matter which he/she ought to have taken into account or that he/she misapprehended the law applicable and evidence before him or that his decision was plainly wrong.” 10.Further, in the case of Mwangi vs. Kenya Airways Ltd (2003) KRL 486, the Court set out the principles upon which discretion under rule 4 may be exercised and stated:“Over the years, the Court has set out guidelines on what a single Judge should consider when dealing with an application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules. For instance, in Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi (Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1977) (unreported), the Court expressed itself thus:“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.” 11.Looking at the ruling subject of this reference, Mbogholi, J.A., sitting as a single Judge, considered the application and all the material that were before the Learned Judge. In terms of the delay, the learned Judge held that the same was not inordinate. Regarding whether the applicant’s appeal was arguable, the learned Judge held that the same was not arguable for the reason that the applicant was bound by his own undertaking under the sale agreement of the suit property. 12.We find nothing from the record to suggest that the learned Judge misdirected himself in matters falling for consideration; or that he arrived at a wrong decision; or that he was wrong in the exercise of his discretion. Consequently, we find no merit in the application. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 13.Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026.W. KARANJA……………………………JUDGE OF APPEALA. O. MUCHELULE……………………………JUDGE OF APPEALL. NJUGUNA……………………………JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR