https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1279

M’Ikunyua & another v Registrar of Societies & 6 others (Civil Application E584 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1279 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1279 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E584 of 2025 SG Kairu, JA July 3, 2026 Between Francis Kirimu M’Ikunyua 1st Applicant Peter Kioko Ndiku 2nd Applicant and Registrar of Societies 1st Respondent Margaret Njeri Wanyoike 2nd Respondent Michael Ngugi Karanja 3rd Respondent Nyakeri 4th Respondent James Njogu 5th Respondent Charles Mwangi Ngumi 6th Respondent Peter Ndungu Mutiga 7th Respondent (Being an application for leave to file appeal out of time against the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (R.E. Aburili, J.) dated 15th August 2025 in HC. JR. No. E603 of 2024) Ruling 1.The applicants moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 30th September 2025 seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of the High Court delivered on 15th August 2025 in HCJR Case No. 63 of 2024. In that judgment, the High Court (R. E. Aburili, J) dismissed the applicants’ application for judicial review in which they sought to challenge the Registrar of Societies’ letter recognizing newly elected official. 2.The present application is based on grounds appearing on the face of the application and in the supporting affidavit sworn by Francis Kirima M’Ikinyua, the 1st applicant, namely that, a Notice of Appeal dated 15th August 2025 was lodged on 18th September 2025; that the applicants also sought to be supplied with certified copies of the proceedings and judgment which were supplied late; that the delay is not inordinate to warrant the denial of leave in the interest of justice. 3.In his replying affidavit in opposition to the application, Michael Ngugi Karanja, the 4th respondent depones that the applicant has not explained or presented evidence of the efforts made to obtain certified copies of the required documents in time. 4.I heard the application on 10th March 2026. Learned counsel for the applicant Miss. Wahome submitted that the reason for the delay is the late processing of the proceedings and certified copy of the judgment which was outside the control of the applicants; that a notice of appeal was filed on the very day the judgment was delivered; that request for certified copies of the decree and typed proceedings was made on 19th September 2025 which were uploaded on 26th September 2025; that by then, time for filing the appeal had lapsed; that the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of filing the notice of appeal; that procedural technicalities should be disregarded to pave way for substantive justice. 5.Learned counsel for the 2nd to 7th respondents Mr. Kenyatta though logged into the virtual platform was neither visible nor audible. However, in his written submissions dated 6th March 2026, it was urged that the judgment of the High Court was delivered on 1st August 2025, that there was approximately 130 days delay since lodging the notice of appeal; that there is inordinate delay which is not explained; that in any event the judgment of the High Court is a proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence and is sound and the intended appeal has no possibility of success. 6.I have considered the application, the affidavits and the submissions against the applicable legal principles. (See Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. IEBC & 7 Others, Supreme Court Application No. 16 of 2014 [2014] eKLR). Although the applicants state that they applied for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment, the letter bespeaking the same is not exhibited. But mention is made in the submissions that they were applied for on 19th September 2025, which is outside the 30 days provided for under the proviso to Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Nonetheless, judgment of the High Court having been delivered on 15th August 2025, there does not appear to be a dispute that the Notice of Appeal was filed on the same day, although the date appearing on the exhibited notice of appeal as the date when it was lodged is 18th September 2025. 7.The applicants were required, under Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules to institute the appeal by lodging the memorandum and record of appeal within 60 days. Taking 15th August 2025 as the date when the Notice of Appeal was lodged, 60 days hence would have lapsed on 14th October 2026. In his submissions however, counsel for the applicants stated that they applied for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment immediately upon receiving instructions “but 30-day period had already lapsed from the date of judgment hence the instant application.” 8.It seems to me that counsel for the applicants was labouring under a mistake that the record of appeal was required to be filed within 30 days (as opposed to 60 days) of filing the notice of appeal. Clearly not the case. Having received the certified proceedings and judgment on 26th September 2025, and barring any other handicaps, counsel for the applicant, was within time to file the memorandum and record of appeal and the present application would have been unnecessary. 9.In the foregoing circumstances, I allow the application. The applicants have 21 days from the date of delivery of this ruling to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal. 10.Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.S. GATEMBU KAIRU, FCIArb, CArb.……………………………JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR