Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated 11th November 2024· [2025] KECA 390 (KLR)

Mburu & 5 others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Civil Application E606 of 2024) [2025] KECA 390 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
28 February 2025
AMA.O. Muchelule
1,160 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

#

The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for an appeal to the Supreme Court because the applicants waited seven months without explaining the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by Muchelule, JA sitting as a single Judge of the Court of Appeal in Nairobi, dated 28th February 2025, on a notice of motion dated 11th November 2024 by Alice Nduta Mburu and five other applicants against Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited. The background is a long-running dispute: Barclays sued the applicants following the loss of Kshs.10,538,952/40 allegedly through fraudulent encashment of twenty-four cheques, and the High Court issued mareva injunction and tracing orders in October 1986 freezing their accounts. After the bank withdrew the suit and the orders were discharged, the applicants pursued a counterclaim for losses allegedly suffered under the freezing orders, which the High Court dismissed on 4th January 2017. The Court of Appeal (Waki, Nambuye and Murgor, JJ.A.) dismissed their appeal on 20th September 2019. The applicants then sought certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; a motion dated 18th November 2019 was struck out on 12th April 2024 for being filed 48 days out of time without leave. The present application sought extension of time to apply for certification and leave, invoking Articles 48, 159 and 163(4)(b) of the Constitution. The single Judge held that his jurisdiction extended only to the extension-of-time prayer. Applying the settled factors in Leo Sila Mutiso and Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo, he found the seven-month delay inordinate and unexplained and dismissed the application on 28th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether inordinate and unexplained delay warrants dismissal of an application for extension of time

Holding

The application was dismissed because the seven-month delay was inordinate and unexplained

Reasoning

The single Judge applied the established factors in Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi and Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet. The applicants had knowledge from the striking-out ruling that they were 48 days out of time, yet waited seven months before applying. Blaming the registry did not amount to a plausible and satisfactory explanation, so the discretion could not be exercised in their favour.

p. 3
02

Scope of a single Judge's jurisdiction in such an application

Holding

Only prayer 1 (extension of time) fell within the single Judge's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The application combined extension of time with certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Judge confirmed that as a single Judge he could only entertain the extension-of-time prayer; certification and leave are for the full court.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is granted only where the delay is satisfactorily explained; even a one-day delay must be explained
  • The four-fold test for extension of time: length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 11th November 2024 is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 48, 159, 163(4)(b)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3, 3A, 7
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2012Rule 24(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2020Rules 33(1), 36(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rules 4, 5(2)(b), 39, 40, 41, 43

Cases cited (2)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso -vs- Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231
  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo -vs- Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 48, 159 and 163(4)(b) of the Constitution; sections 3, 3A and 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4, 5(2)(b), 39, 40, 41 and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (single Judge, extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mburu & 5 others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Civil Application E606 of 2024) [2025] KECA 390 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 11th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/390/eng@2025-02-28

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