Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal extended time for Abyssinia Iron and Steel Limited to seek certification for a Supreme Court appeal, finding the delay explained and the proposed appeal arguable.
In re Estate of Wanji alias Fredrick SM Wanjie (Deceased) (Civil Application E049 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1570 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that leave to appeal was unnecessary in the succession context, that prayers on stay were not properly before a single Judge, and that the applicant satisfied the Rule 4 threshold for extension of time because the intended appeal was arguable, the short delay was excusable, and no undue prejudice was shown. However, the Court declined to validate the already irregular appeal-related steps in the manner criticized by the Supreme Court and instead granted leave to file an appeal out of time within 14 days.
Source excerpt
Muyesu v Kenya Power & Lighting Company & 3 others (Petition E005 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11878 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The 1st respondent filed its application outside the time ordered by the court and on the eve of the hearing without any explanation for the delay. The court found this to be a deliberate attempt to delay the petition, abhorred the conduct, and struck out the application while preserving the petition for hearing.
Source excerpt
Elkington & Associates v Lakhiani & another (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E882 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11536 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that although the delay of about one month and seven days was not inordinate, the applicants failed to give a plausible and satisfactory explanation for missing the deadline. Their claim of being abroad with limited communication was rejected as implausible in modern conditions. Because no proper basis was laid for the exercise of discretion and prejudice to the respondent was apparent, enlargement of time was declined.
Source excerpt
Herold R Fenwich & Associates v Kwale International Sugar Company Ltd (Civil Application E013 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1389 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant gave a satisfactory and excusable explanation for the 45-day delay, the application was unopposed, and the delay was not inordinate; therefore, discretion under Rule 4 was exercised in favour of extending time for 14 days to seek leave from the High Court.
Source excerpt
Kamau & 42 others v Leonid Ltd (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 4412 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because it was filed through advocates who had not properly come on record after judgment, it was brought after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about six years from judgment and more than a year after the alleged discovery, and the supposed new evidence was not new in the legal sense because it was created in 2024 and could not justify review of a 2020 judgment. The court therefore found the motion incompetent and without merit.
Source excerpt
Ngina v Mwangi & 2 others (Civil Application E340 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1375 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that a three-day delay in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate, the explanation though imperfect did not disclose deliberate indolence, the intended appeal was not plainly frivolous, and the respondent would suffer no prejudice beyond ordinary litigation inconvenience compensable by costs. Extension of time was therefore justified in the interests of substantive justice.
Source excerpt
Everflora Ltd v Simiyu (Civil Application E329 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1301 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court found the nine-day delay short and satisfactorily explained by inadvertence in counsel’s office, held that the proposed appeal was arguable because it raised a limitation issue under the Employment Act, and found no demonstrated prejudice to the respondent. Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso factors, the court exercised its discretion to extend time and deem the notice of appeal duly filed and served.
Source excerpt
Shieni v Ropiara (Civil Application E055 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1215 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling)
The delay in filing the notice of appeal was only two days, was not inordinate, and was satisfactorily explained by delayed availability of the judgment and Easter holiday-related delay in instructing counsel; therefore, extension of time was justified. A single judge lacked jurisdiction to consider stay of execution.
Source excerpt
Martin t/a Waichungo Martin & Company Advocates v Wangui (Miscellaneous Reference Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8428 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant demonstrated only a short 2-day delay, offered a satisfactory explanation that the taxing officer's reasons were supplied late, and the application was unopposed. Applying Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the controlling principles on extension of time, the court found it just and equitable to enlarge time.
Source excerpt
Explore more
