Ochieng v Awanad Enterprises Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E054 of 2021) [2025] KECA 757 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal attempt because the applicant couldn't explain a 15-month delay or blame his former advocate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file the record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file out of time an application for leave to appeal the ELRC ruling of 18th June 2021
- 3.Whether the applicant has laid a proper basis for the exercise of the Court's discretion under Rule 4 in his favour
Key legal issues
#Exercise of discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The discretion to extend time, though unfettered, must be exercised judicially; the applicant did not discharge the burden of explaining the delay.
The Court applied the Salat principles and the Fakir Mohamed factors: length and reason for delay, prejudice, and whether the application was brought without undue delay. The record of appeal was filed one year and three months late, and the applicant gave conflicting explanations (delay in obtaining certified proceedings vs an advocate who disappeared) with no evidence of follow-up efforts. The applicant was also on notice of the defect from the respondents' application of 5th May 2023 yet waited until November 2024 to seek extension.
Blaming former advocates for delay
Blaming an advocate who 'disappeared' is insufficient; the litigant must show efforts to follow up the matter.
Relying on Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo, the Court held that the applicant offered inconsistent explanations and produced no evidence of efforts to trace his former advocate or pursue the file. A litigant remains responsible for the conduct of litigation even when represented, so the advocate's transgressions could not excuse the inordinate delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court.
- A litigant cannot simply blame their advocate; parties must show interest in and follow up their cases even when represented by counsel.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's application dated 28th November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- ELRC Cause No. 66 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (extension of time)
Relief refused
#Leave to file the record of appeal out of time
The applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of one year and three months in filing the record of appeal and did not lay a proper basis for extension of time
Leave to file out of time an application for leave to appeal the ELRC ruling of 18th June 2021
The application failed and was dismissed with costs
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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 but an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
parties have a responsibility to show interest in and to follow up their cases even when they are represented by counsel
the applicant's application dated 28th November 2024 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#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.
- University of Nairobi v Ricatti Business College of East Africa (Civil Appeal (Application) E566 of 2021) [2026] KECA 418 (KLR)[2026] KECA 418 (KLR)27 Feb 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng v Awanad Enterprises Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E054 of 2021) [2025] KECA 757 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. E054 of 2021 (Application dated 28th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/757/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.