Roopra t/a Motorways Constructions v Shreeji Enterprises (K) Limited (Civil Application E477 of 2024) [2025] KECA 680 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal where the applicant made no follow-up for 17 months, confirming that extensions are earned, not automatic.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's delay in seeking extension of time was satisfactorily explained
The delay was not satisfactorily explained: the applicant made no enquiries for over 17 months after the hearing concluded, and the subsequent two-month delay in filing the application was unexplained.
The court accepted that the High Court bore the obligation to give notice of delivery of judgment, but found concerning that the applicant made no follow-up for over 17 months. The further two-month delay between service of the Bill of Costs on 19th July 2024 and filing of the application on 19th September 2024 was attributed vaguely to court vacation, which the court found unpersuasive since the applicant had been able to file the notice of appeal and request for proceedings on the very day of service. The suit was also over twenty years old.
Whether the circumstances merited exercise of the Rule 4 discretion in the applicant's favour
They did not; the application was dismissed.
Applying the Fakir Mohamed factors and the Salat principles from the Supreme Court, the court weighed the length and explanation of delay, the absence of any satisfactory reason, the age of the case (over twenty years since filing), and the importance of compliance with time limits, concluding the discretion should not be exercised in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, granted at the court's discretion on a case-by-case basis; the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
- Although the discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered, it must be exercised judicially and each case considered on its own facts.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th September 2024 is declined
- 2.The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Civil Case No. 781 of 2003
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent discretionary extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Roopra t/a Motorways Constructions v Shreeji Enterprises (K) Limited (Civil Application E477 of 2024) [2025] KECA 680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. NAI of 2024 (application dated 19th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/680/eng@2025-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.