Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application (extension of time) dated 5th April 2024· [2025] KECA 303 (KLR)

Redwood Properties Limited v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & 3 others (Civil Application E231 of 2024) [2025] KECA 303 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 February 2025
1,367 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Redwood Properties more time to appeal, ruling that an eight-month delay was excusable where the reason was plausible and the appeal had merit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-Judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (W. Karanja, JA) on Redwood Properties Limited's application dated 5th April 2024 for extension of time to file and serve a Memorandum and Record of Appeal against a High Court judgment by L. Komingoi, J delivered on 28th July 2022. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on time on 11th August 2022 and requested typed proceedings, which were only availed on 14th June 2023. The applicant attributed the subsequent delay to a restructuring of its advocates' office during which the file was inadvertently misplaced, with the application filed on 5th April 2024. The first respondent, the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, opposed, citing inordinate delay of over eight months, lack of satisfactory explanation, and insufficient demonstration of an arguable appeal. Applying rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules and the settled factors from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi and Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd, the Judge held that the delay was not inordinate given the circumstances, the reason was plausible, the intended appeal raised a non-frivolous question on the evidentiary burden under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, and no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents. The application was allowed with each party bearing its own costs, and the Record of Appeal was to be filed and served within 14 days, failing which the leave granted would stand vacated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 8 months in filing the application and Record of Appeal was excusable

Holding

The delay was not inordinate in the circumstances; the reason given (misplacement of the file during a restructuring of the advocates' office) was plausible.

Reasoning

The court noted the Notice of Appeal was filed on time, so the appeal was not an afterthought. Whether delay is inordinate depends on the nature of the case; courts have countenanced delays of up to two years. Given the subject matter (loss of property) and the restructuring explanation, the reason was plausible and the applicant should not be shut out of the right to appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended appeal was frivolous and whether the respondents would be prejudiced

Holding

The intended appeal raised a non-frivolous question of the evidentiary burden under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, and no prejudice would be occasioned to the respondents.

Reasoning

The court found the issue of interpretation of the evidentiary burden provisions was important not just to the parties but to other similar matters. The applicant had lost its property and should not be dislodged from the seat of justice without an opportunity to be heard on appeal; the respondents would suffer no prejudice if the appeal was heard.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In a rule 4 extension-of-time application the single Judge exercises a discretion which, though unfettered, must be exercised judicially on the settled factors: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal
  2. 2.Record of Appeal to be filed and served on the parties within 14 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the leave granted shall stand vacated
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
  • Evidence ActSections 107-109

Cases cited (3)

  • Henry Mukora Mwangi v Charles Gichina Mwangi
    Civil Application No. Nai. 26 of 2004
  • Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd.
    [2003] KLR 486
  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Application No. Nai. 255 of 1997 (unreported)
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Redwood Properties Limited v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & 3 others (Civil Application E231 of 2024) [2025] KECA 303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (extension of time) dated 5th April 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/303/eng@2025-02-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.