Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Now ABSA Kenya PLC) v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes(Large Taxpayers Office); Kenya Bankers Association & another (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#Court grants extension of time for late filing, finding one-day delay excusable.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court of Kenya allowed a party to file court documents one day late. The delay was caused by a lawyer's oversight and illness. The court said extension of time is not automatic but a fair remedy for deserving parties. Since the delay was short and explained, and no one else was harmed, the court granted extra time.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent has established a reasonable reason for the delay in filing submissions
- 2.Whether the delay was inordinate
- 3.Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing submissions
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent established a reasonable reason for the delay in filing submissions
The court found that the respondent's counsel's inadvertent oversight of prescribed deadlines, compounded by a period of illness, constituted a plausible reason for the delay.
The court reviewed the respondent's explanation that the delay was caused by counsel's inadvertent oversight of the prescribed timelines, compounded by a period of illness that hindered completion of submissions. The court gave counsel the benefit of doubt as an officer of the court, finding the delay neither unreasonable nor inordinate. The court distinguished between the petitioner's and 1st interested party's objections and the respondent's explanation, ultimately exercising discretion in favor of the respondent.
Whether the delay was inordinate
The court held that the delay was neither unreasonable nor inordinate.
The court considered that the respondent filed submissions on August 23, 2024, one day after the stipulated date of August 22, 2024 (or eight days after August 14, 2024 as argued by the 1st interested party). The court found this delay minimal and not inordinate, especially given the explanation provided by counsel.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time
The court exercised its discretion to extend time, allowing the respondent seven days to file submissions.
The court applied the principles from the Salat case, noting that extension of time is an equitable remedy. The court found that the respondent had established a plausible reason for the delay, the delay was not inordinate, and no prejudice would be suffered by other parties. The court also noted its unfettered discretion under rule 15(2) of the Supreme Court Rules to extend time.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, granted at the court's discretion.
- The party asking for more time must explain the delay to the court's satisfaction.
- A short, excusable delay (e.g., one day due to lawyer's illness) may not be considered inordinate.
- Courts consider prejudice to other parties when deciding whether to extend time.
- The court's power to extend time is unfettered under Supreme Court Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated August 23, 2024 and filed on August 26, 2024 is hereby allowed.
- 2.The respondent is granted seven days from the date of this ruling to file and serve its submissions.
- 3.The petitioner and the 1st interested party shall have seven days from the date of service to file any responses.
- 4.Costs of the motion shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not specified in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
We give the respondent's counsel the benefit of doubt as an officer of the court. Consequently, we find that the respondent has adequately established a plausible reason for the delay.
Costs of the motion shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Prepare timely extension applications
Always file an extension application as soon as you realize a deadline will be missed. Even a one-day delay requires a formal motion. The court gave the lawyer the benefit of doubt as an officer of the court, but you must provide a clear, credible explanation—such as inadvertent oversight or illness—to justify the delay.
Monitor legal deadlines closely
Your legal team must track court deadlines carefully. A single day's delay can trigger a court application and additional costs. Ensure your lawyers have internal reminders and backup counsel arrangements to avoid reliance on a single person who may fall ill. The court may grant leniency, but it is not guaranteed.
Explain delays honestly to court
If you miss a court deadline, you must provide a truthful reason. The court accepted a lawyer's illness and oversight as a valid excuse here. However, you cannot assume leniency—delays must be short and not harm the other side. Always consult your lawyer immediately to file an extension request.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I get an extension of time to file court documents in Kenya after the deadline?+
Yes, but it is not automatic. You must file a formal application explaining why you missed the deadline. The court will consider the reason for delay, how late you are, and whether the other party will be harmed. A short delay with a good excuse, like a lawyer's illness, may be granted.
What happens if I file court papers one day late in Kenya?+
The court may still accept them if you apply for extension of time and give a valid reason. In this Supreme Court case, a one-day delay due to a lawyer's oversight and illness was allowed. However, you risk the documents being rejected if you do not explain the delay properly.
Is extension of time a right in Kenyan courts?+
No. The Supreme Court of Kenya confirmed that extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right. It is granted only at the court's discretion to a deserving party. You must show a plausible reason for the delay and that the delay was not inordinate.
What factors does a Kenyan court consider for extension of time?+
Courts consider: (1) the reason for the delay, (2) whether the delay was inordinate, (3) prejudice to other parties, and (4) whether the application was made promptly. Each case is decided on its own facts. The party seeking extension has the burden to satisfy the court.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Matindi v National Assembly Republic of Kenya & 4 others[2025] KESC 66 (KLR)14 Nov 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Now ABSA Kenya PLC) v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes(Large Taxpayers Office); Kenya Bankers Association & another (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (Application) 12 (E014) of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/78/eng@2024-12-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.