Awadh v Noor Roundation Registered Trustees (Trading as Madina Muslim School) (Civil Application E116 of 2024) [2025] KECA 759 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal excused a delayed appeal caused by a court fee error, confirming registry mistakes can justify late filings.
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 delay in filing and serving the memorandum and record of appeal is inordinate and excusable
- 2.Whether the memorandum and record of appeal dated 9th April 2024 and the supplementary record of appeal filed 15th October 2024 should be deemed duly filed and served
- 3.Whether the respondent's apprehension about inability to recover costs from an admitted pauper justifies refusal of the extension
Key legal issues
#Whether the cumulative delay of about three and a half months in filing the record of appeal and a further two months in filing the application is excusable
The court found the reasons plausible and the delay not inordinate, and excused it.
The appeal was timeously lodged for assessment on 11th April 2024 within sixty days of the certificate of readiness. A technical registry error in fee assessment (initially Kshs.1,500 against a correct Kshs.15,800) delayed payment until 21st August 2024, when the applicant's advocates paid on his behalf. The court treated this as a plausible explanation and the cumulative delay as not so inordinate as to be inexcusable.
Whether the respondent's alleged prejudice, arising from the applicant being an admitted pauper unable to pay costs, warranted refusal
The court held that an extension-of-time application is not the proper forum for such an apprehension; the respondent should seek enhanced security of costs under rule 111(3).
The respondent argued that, since the applicant admitted being a pauper, it could not recover costs if the appeal failed, exposing it to prejudice. The court declined to determine that question on the motion, holding that the proper remedy, if the existing security of costs was inadequate, was an application for enhanced security of costs under rule 111(3) of the Court's Rules.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is discretionary and the court considers the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.
- An application for extension of time is not the proper forum to raise apprehensions about the applicant's inability to pay costs; the remedy is an application for enhanced security of costs under rule 111(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 22nd October 2024 is allowed
- 2.The memorandum and record of appeal dated 9th April 2024 and the supplementary record of appeal filed on 15th October 2024 are deemed as duly filed and served
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Mombasa
- Mombasa ELRC Appeal No. E041 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion to extend time for filing an appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules (rule 111(3) referred to for security of costs); motion for admission out of time of memorandum and record of appeal
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.
It is now settled that the decision whether to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
The reasons profiered for the greater period of delay are plausible and as the cumulative period of delay is also not so inordinate, it is excusable.
The notice of motion dated 22nd October 2024 is hereby allowed.
The memorandum and record of appeal dated 9th April, 2024 and the supplementary record of appeal filed on 15th October, 2024 are hereby deemed as duly filed and served. Costs of the application shall be in the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the certificate of delay was issued on 5th April 2024 in one place, but paragraph 2 states the advocates were alerted of readiness on 5th March 2024 and furnished with them on 8th March 2024; the date of issuance of the certificate is inconsistently narrated.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Awadh v Noor Roundation Registered Trustees (Trading as Madina Muslim School) (Civil Application E116 of 2024) [2025] KECA 759 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from intended appeal against Mombasa ELRC Appeal No. E041 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/759/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.