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 AppealAllowedCivil Application (Eldoret)· [2025] KECA 743 (KLR)

Estate of Julius Mabusi Nandasaba alias Julius Wafula alias Julius Mabusi alias Jairus Wafula Represented by Benson Juma Mabusi and Mathews Simiyu Mabus v Satia & Partners & 9 others (Civil Application E032 of 2024) [2025] KECA 743 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
5 May 2025
JMJ. Mativo
1,210 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 a 22-day delay in serving an appeal notice, accepting a lawyer-client communication breakdown as a valid, excusable explanation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Eldoret (Mativo, JA) on a notice of motion dated 31st May 2024 brought under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, seeking extension of time to serve a notice of appeal against a ruling delivered by Nyagaka J. on 23rd April 2024 in Kitale ELC Case No. 24 of 2021. The applicant, administrator of the estate of Julius Mabusi Nandasaba, filed his notice of appeal timeously on 2nd May 2024 but failed to serve it within the seven-day period prescribed by Rule 79(1), attributing the default to a communication breakdown with his advocate. The respondent opposed, contending the delay was inordinate and unexplained, that no certificate of delay was furnished, and that the applicant, having moved as a proposed interested party in a concluded matter, could not mount an arguable appeal. Framing the sole question as whether the applicant met the threshold for extending time, the court applied the Supreme Court's Salat criteria and the Chemaringo exposition. It found the twenty-two-day delay explained to the Court's satisfaction, excusable and not inordinate, and that no prejudice had been shown. The application was allowed: the applicant was granted extension of time to serve the notice of appeal within seven days of the ruling, with no order as to costs. The ruling does not disturb the decision below; it is purely interlocutory, disposing only of the extension-of-time application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of twenty-two (22) days in serving the notice of appeal was excusable and merited extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

Yes - the applicant's explanation of a communication breakdown with his advocate was plausible and satisfactory; the delay was neither inordinate nor prejudicial.

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat and Chemaringo tests: extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy; the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay and the respondents must suffer no prejudice. The notice of appeal was filed timeously; only service was late by twenty-two days, and the communication breakdown explanation was accepted. No prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Extension of time granted to serve a notice of appeal dated 27th April 2024 against the ruling delivered by Nyagaka J. on 23rd April 2024 in Kitale ELC Case No. 24 of 2021, within 7 days from the date of the ruling
    2. 2.No order as to the costs of the application

    Authorities

    #

    Legislation

    • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3A and 3B
    • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 4
    • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022Rule 79(1)

    Cases cited (2)

    • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
      [2014] eKLR
    • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet
      [2018] eKLR
    On appeal from
    Environment and Land Court, Kitale
    Kitale ELC Case No. 24 of 2021
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Estate of Julius Mabusi Nandasaba alias Julius Wafula alias Julius Mabusi alias Jairus Wafula Represented by Benson Juma Mabusi and Mathews Simiyu Mabus v Satia & Partners & 9 others (Civil Application E032 of 2024) [2025] KECA 743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/743/eng@2025-05-05

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