https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1448

Kenya Power and Lighting Company Plc v Mwangi (Civil Application E074 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1448 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1448 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Civil Application E074 of 2026 MB Kairaria, JA July 17, 2026 Between Kenya Power and Lighting Company Plc Applicant and Catherine Wangui Mwangi Respondent (An application for extension of time to file and serve memorandum and record of appeal from the judgement of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Anna Ngibuini, J.) delivered on 30th January 2026 in ELRC Case No. E062 of 2023) Ruling 1.Before me for determination, is a notice of motion application dated 15th May, 2026 brought by Kenya Power and Lighting Co. PLC [the Applicant] principally seeking leave to file and serve memorandum of appeal and record of appeal against the judgement delivered by the Hon. A. Ngibuini J on 30th January 2026 in Nakuru ELRC Cause No. E062 of 2023. The learned judge awarded the Respondent [Catherine Wangui Mwangi] the sum of Ksh. 3,219,346 as compensation for wrongful and unfair termination of employment plus costs and interest at 14 % per annum. 2.Dissatisfied with that judgement the Applicant filed and served a notice of appeal dated 6th February, 2026 under Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, thus signaling its desire and intention to appeal against the whole of the said judgement. The applicant also moved the trial court for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal which was granted on condition that the Applicant deposits the decretal amount in court. The applicant deposited the entire Ksh. 3,219,346 on 23rd April, 2026. 3.The Applicant was by dint of Rule 84 expected to file its appeal within 60 days after the date when the notice of appeal was lodged before the trial court but did not do so. In my assessment the applicant should have filed the notice of appeal at least by 7th April, 2026. It would appear that the Applicant and its advocate focused all their energies in meeting the conditional stay of execution so much so that by the time the deposit of Ksh. 3,219,346 was being made on 27th April, 2026 the prescribed period for institution of appeals had lapsed. 4.The Applicant desires to pursue its appeal against the judgement of the ELRC dated 30th June, 2026 and prays that this Court be pleased to enlarge the time within which to file and serve its memorandum and record of appeal. The applicant has invoked Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules which grants unfettered discretion to extend time for doing anything that is required to be done by the rules on such terms as may be just. The application is based on grounds on the face of the application supported by the affidavit of Nicole Kihara, sworn on 15th May, 2026 and written submissions. Briefly those grounds and the facts in support thereof are:a.judgement was delivered on 30th January, 2026 in which the Respondent was awarded Ksh. 3,219346;b.being dissatisfied it lodged a notice of appeal on 6th February,2026 signifying its intention to appeal;c.the applicant was no able to deposit the decretal amount within the 30 days stay period granted by the trial court on 30th January 2026;d.it was forced to apply for stay of execution before the trial court which allowed on 13th April ,2026 on terms that the applicant deposits the entire amount in court;e.the entire decretal amount was deposited on 27th April, 2026;f.the delay in filing the memorandum and record of appeal was caused by inadvertence and administrative challenges on the part of its counsel;g.the deposit of the security demonstrates its commitment to pursue the appeal, and it has an arguable appeal which has high chances of success as disclosed in the draft memorandum of appeal attached to the supporting affidavit. 5.The Respondent did not file any response and submissions in opposition to the application and so the application has proceeded as undefended. 6.The principles upon which this Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction to extend time under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules are well settled by a long line of decided cases. Some of the factors that I should take into account include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, probably the likelihood of the intended appeal succeeding and the likely prejudice that may be suffered by the respondent if the extension sought is granted. The onus is upon the applicant to offer a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay. This was described as the key that unlocks the Court’s flow of discretionary favor. [See Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR]. 7.I have considered the grounds of the application, the supporting affidavit the annexures thereto. The reason given for the delay is in my view plausible and satisfactory. The delay is also not inordinate and the applicant has demonstrated its seriousness to pursue the appeal by depositing the entire decretal sum in court. I have also considered that the Respondent will not be prejudiced if I grant extension of time. The Respondent will easily get paid if the Applicant’s intended appeal does not ultimately succeed. 8.In the end, I am satisfied that this is proper case for the exercise of my discretion to extend time to allow the applicant file and serve its memorandum and record of appeal out of time. 9.Accordingly, I allow the application dated 6th May, 2026 and direct that the applicant shall file and serve its memorandum and record of appeal within twenty one [21] days from the date of this ruling. 10.I have no jurisdiction to grant the prayer for stay of proceedings relating to the Respondent’s application seeking to strike out the notice of appeal. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal. Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.MURUNGI B. KAIRARIA .................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDeputy Registrar