https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1228

Kenya Red Cross Headquater v Chemuku (Civil Application E071 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1228 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1228 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Civil Application E071 of 2026 JM Mativo, JA July 1, 2026 Between Kenya Red Cross Headquater Applicant and Nicholas Simiyu Chemuku Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and for stay of execution from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (J. Nange’a, J.) dated 27th April 2026 in CA No. E174 of 2025) Ruling 1.Kenya Red Cross Headquarter (the applicant) in its “omnibus” application dated 14th May 2026 seeks orders which ordinarily under the rules of this Court can only be granted by a single judge and orders which are only available from a full bench of this Court. The term "omnibus application" typically refers to a single application in which a party seeks multiple, often unrelated or distinct, forms of relief. Courts have consistently warned that bundling too many distinct prayers into one application can obscure the true nature of the relief sought, making it difficult for the respondent to answer effectively. I must stress that the Rules of this Court exist to ensure a fair and orderly ventilation of disputes. An omnibus application that bypasses specific procedural requirements must be abhorred, especially if one prayer depends on the outcome of the other relief sought. Specifically, in this case, the prayer for stay of execution depends entirely on the outcome of the prayer for extension of time. Omnibus applications create an untidy situation whereby if the single judge prayer is allowed, the application is “partially determined” necessitating referral to a full bench for determination of the other prayers. (See Michael Kandie Kangogo vs. Mohamed Cheboi & 5 Others [2026] KECA Civil Application No. NAK E141 of 2025 (Nakuru)). 2.Accordingly, I will only address prayers (d), (e) and (f) of the application which falls within the jurisdiction of a single judge. In the said prayers, the applicant prays for extension of time within which he may file and serve the notice of appeal and the record of appeal against the ruling delivered by Nange’a J. on 27th day of April 2026 in Civil Appeal No. E174 of 2026; that the notice of appeal be filed within 14 days from the date of the order and the court issues directions on the filing of the record of appeal. The applicant also prays for the costs of the application to be provided for. 3.In support of the application, the applicant has substantially urged grounds in support of the stay of execution which are outside the purview of the jurisdiction of a single judge. The only ground in support of the plea for extension of time is that the delay in filing the application for extension of time is not inordinate since the ruling was delivered on 27th April 2026 and the instant application was filed on 15th May 2026. 4.The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 21st May 2026. The salient averments are:(a)the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion in his favour;(b)under the rules, the applicant was required to file notice of appeal on 11th May 2026;(c)the applicant has not annexed the notice of appeal to his application;(d)and,(e)the reasons for the delay are vague, unsubstantiated and are not reasonable. 5.The applicant filed submissions dated 28th May 2026 in which it spent a lot of ink and paper addressing the prayer for stay which is outside the jurisdiction of a single judge and almost nothing on the prayer for extension of time, a clear indication as to why omnibus applications must be avoided. It’s only at the conclusion that the applicant argues that it acted in good faith and completely overlooked the key considerations for extension of time. 6.As at 9.10 am, the respondent’s submissions (if any) were not in the e-file. 7.Under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, the threshold for granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal or record of appeal is essentially a matter of unfettered, judicial discretion, which must be guided by sound legal principles rather than caprice. (See Ongeta vs. Abudo (Civil Application E320 of 2025) [2026] KECA 470 (KLR) (6 March 2026) (Ruling)). Rule 4 does not explicitly list the criteria for determining an application for extension of time within its text, however, this Court has through its jurisprudence established clear parameters that an applicant must satisfy to secure an extension of time. (See Sitoya vs. Republic (Criminal Application E011 of 2025) [2026] KECA 814 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)). 8.The core threshold principles as was firmly established in several foundational cases such as Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2 EA 231 (CAK) and reaffirmed in subsequent decisions, is that a single judge evaluating the application balances four primary factors, namely,(a)the Length of the delay. Even though the law does not set the minimum or maximum period of delay, short delays are easily forgiven. Inordinate or prolonged delays face strict scrutiny and lowers the chances of obtaining relief.(b)the reason for the delay must be provided. The applicant bears the burden of placing sufficient material before the Court to explain every day of the delay. The explanation must be plausible, reasonable and excusable (e.g., delay in getting court proceedings, illness or an administrative breakdown). Indolence, negligence, or silent gaps of unexplained time will defeat the application. (See Ongeta vs. Abudo (Civil Application E320 of 2025) [2026] KECA 470 (KLR) (6 March 2026) (Ruling)). The Court balances the applicant's right to be heard against the respondent's right to finality of litigation. As was held by the Supreme Court in Fakir Mohamed vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2005] eKLR, the threshold cannot be met through empty assertions. The applicant must place sufficient evidentiary material on record (via a supporting affidavit) to allow the judge to execute their discretion favorably. 9.Notably, the guiding threshold is clearly set out in Rule 4 which is “on such terms as may be just” which means the standard is the "interests of justice," which requires balancing the explanation for the delay, the prospects of success, the importance of the case, and prejudice to the parties. 10.I have considered the application and more so, the period of delay.The ruling in question was delivered on 21st May 2026. The 14 days lapsed on 11th May 2025. The applicant moved this Court on 15th May 2026. The applicant was required to explain the reasons for the four-day delay. It is a requirement that even a delay of one day must be explained. However, I am alive to the Constitutional imperative that cases must be heard on their merits rather than being defeated by technicalities which is anchored in Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. This article explicitly mandates that in exercising judicial authority, courts and tribunals must ensure that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. 11.The primary goal of Article 159(2)(d) is to prevent situations where a litigant is locked out of the temple of justice simply due to a minor, curable procedural slip, a clerical oversight, or an administrative delay. The courts have repeatedly held that procedural rules are "handmaids of justice," not its mistresses. They exist to facilitate the orderly resolution of disputes, not to serve as traps to defeat substantive claims. The delay in this case was for four days only. In my view, this delay is excusable. I see no prejudice to the respondent which cannot be compensated by way of costs. Accordingly, I allow the application and order that the applicant shall file the notice of appeal within 14 days from today and serve it within the period prescribed by the Rules and file the record of appeal within 21 days from today. However, the applicant shall pay the respondent the costs of this application. 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.