https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1419

Sacco Societies Regulatory Authority v Nyati Sacco Society Limited & another (Civil Application E020 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1419 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1419 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E020 of 2026 LK Kimaru, JA July 13, 2026 Between The Sacco Societies Regulatory Authority Applicant and Nyati Sacco Society Limited 1st Respondent Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-Operatives Limited 2nd Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to file the record of Appeal out of time from the Judgement of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Chigiti, (SC) J) dated 3rd November, 2025 in JR Review No. E048 of 2025) Ruling 1.The applicant was aggrieved by the decision rendered on 3rd November, 2025 by the High Court sitting at Nairobi. It wishes to pursue an appeal against the said decision in this Court. It has filed an application, essentially, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to be granted extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time. The applicant states that after the delivery of the said decision, it timeously lodged the notice of appeal on 6th November, 2025. However, it was not able to file the record of appeal in time due to the fact that it was unable to trace a portion of the record of the trial court due to the voluminous nature of the proceedings and pleadings that were filed. 2.By the time the applicant was able to compile the record of appeal, the time by which the record of appeal was required to be filed had lapsed. The applicant pleaded with the Court to exercise its discretion in its favour and give it a chance to ventilate its appeal before this Court. The applicant asserted that the delay was not inordinate and in any event the respondent would not be prejudiced. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit and further affidavit of David Sandagi, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the applicant. 3.The application is opposed. Joyce Kibuti, the acting Chief Executive officer of the respondent swore a replying affidavit in opposition to the application. She was not convinced by the reasons given by applicant for delay in filing the record of appeal in time. She was of the view that the applicant had not given cogent reasons for the delay noting that the filing of the record of appeal is online and no longer physical. She deponed that the intended appeal is an attempt by the applicant to bring new issues for determination by this Court that were not canvassed before the High Court. She pointed out that the respondent will be prejudiced if the application is allowed. She urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs. 4.The applicant’s and the respondents’ respective counsel filed written submission in support of their respective clients’ positions. Both appreciated that in exercising its discretion pursuant to Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, this Court’s discretion is unfettered. However, the exercise of this discretion is guided by principles which are now well settled. In Fakir Mohamed v. Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2006] KECA 240 [KLR), this Court held thus:“As it is unfettered, there is no limit to the number of factors the Court would consider so long as they are relevant. The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possible), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the effect of the delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance-are all relevant but not exhaustive factors.” 5.In the present application, the applicant, a statutory regulatory body, has given the reason for delay in filing the record of appeal in time. The applicant explained that it was prevented from filing the record of appeal in time due to the fact that it was unable to trace in time a portion of the record before the High Court in time to enable it compile the record of appeal. The applicant explained that due to the voluminous nature of the record, it took a considerable period of time for it to prepare and file the record of appeal. The respondent was not convinced by the reasons given by the applicant for the delay in filing the record of appeal in time. It was of the view that the period of delay and the reasons given for the delay were inexcusable. 6.This Court, upon consideration of the reasons given by the applicant for delay in filing the record of appeal, is convinced by the reasons given. The applicant was required to file the record of appeal by 6th January, 2026. The present application seeking extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time was filed on 16th January, 2026. That is a delay of ten (10) days. This period, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be inordinate. The reasons given by the applicant for the delay in filing the record of appeal in time is excusable. Preparation of voluminous record of appeal can, in certain circumstances, take a considerable period of time. The application has merit. It is hereby allowed. 7.The applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal within fourteen (14) days of today’s date. The respondent shall have costs of the application which is assessed at Kshs. 15,000/-. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.L. KIMARU....................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of original.SignedDeputy Registrar