https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1227
The Court accepted the applicant's explanation for delay as plausible, found the delay not inordinate, and exercised its discretion to extend time because the respondent offered no opposition and the interests of justice favoured allowing the matter to proceed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KECA 1227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josiah Kipkoske Kirui; Respondent: Michael Metet & 12 others
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E020 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application for Extension of Time and Filing of Submissions in an Appeal / Ruling on Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed.
- Judges
- ["JM Mativo"]
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Late Filing of Record of Appeal, Late Filing of Written Submissions, Court of Appeal Rules 2022, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Josiah Kipkoske Kirui
Applicant
Michael Metet & 12 others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Extension of Time and Filing of Submissions in an Appeal / Ruling on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should extend time for filing and serving the record of appeal and submissions.
- 2 Whether the applicant's explanation for delay was plausible and the delay inordinate.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court accepted the applicant's explanation for delay as plausible, found the delay not inordinate, and exercised its discretion to extend time because the respondent offered no opposition and the interests of justice favoured allowing the matter to proceed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed.
Orders
- Time extended by 14 days from the date of the ruling for the applicant to file and serve the record of appeal and submissions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kirui v Metet & 12 others (Civil Application E020 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1227 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1227 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Civil Application E020 of 2026 JM Mativo, JA July 1, 2026 Between Josiah Kipkoske Kirui Applicant and Michael Metet & 12 others Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to file and serve written submissions from the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Kericho (A. Omollo, J.) dated 22nd January 2026 in ELC No. E007 of 2024) Ruling 1.On 21st April 2026 the applicant’s application dated 13th February 2026 seeking stay of execution came up for hearing and this Court stated that this is a matter where the appeal should proceed for hearing and declined to grant the stay sought. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellant to file and serve submissions within 14 days. The Court also directed the respondents to file submissions within 14 days from date of service. Lastly, the Court directed that the appeal be heard on priority basis. 2.The applicant is back in this Court vide his application dated 2nd June 2026 brought under Rules 4, 47 & 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, seeking leave to file his appeal out of time and an extension of 7 days to file and serve his submissions. In support of the application, he states that he filed his notice of appeal on 29th January 2026 and applied for proceedings immediately. However, the typed proceedings are voluminous, hence, his inability to compile the record of appeal. Apparently, when he was before us on 21st April 2026, the only document he had filed was the memorandum of appeal even though he said he had filed the appeal. 3.Despite having been served by the Court with a hearing notice dated 17th June 2026 through their e-mail address nakuru[Particulars Withheld].com the respondent has not filed a reply to the instant application or submissions as at today 1st July 2026 at 9:10 am. 4.Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 provides that the Court may on such terms as it thinks just, by order extend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of the Court or of a Superior Court for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing of the act and a reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to that time as extended. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, the Supreme Court stated that the law does not set a minimum or maximum period of delay. 5.I have considered the explanation proffered by the applicant. I am persuaded that the explanation is plausible. The period of delay is not inordinate. Accordingly, I allow the application and extent the time within which the applicant is to file and serve his record of appeal and submissions by 14 days from the day of this ruling. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.J. MATIVO................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.