Kenya United Steel Company (2022) Limited v Ahmed & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E141 of 2022) [2025] KECA 854 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a 20-month-delayed application because the applicant never explained when he first learned of the appeal.
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 2nd respondent should be granted leave to file an application to strike out the record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the 2nd respondent's delay of about 20 months in bringing the motion is excusable
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking leave to file a striking-out application out of time was excusable
The application fails because the applicant did not disclose when he became aware of the notice of appeal or record of appeal, so the court cannot assess whether the delay is excusable or inordinate
The court applied the Fakir Mohamed criteria for extension of time. A critical factor is the length of the delay and whether it is explained to the court's satisfaction. The 2nd respondent sought leave roughly 20 months after the record of appeal was filed, yet did not state when he first became aware of the appeal. Without that information the court cannot weigh the delay; the omission is fatal to the application.
The scope of Rule 86 striking-out applications
Rule 86 permits a person affected by an appeal to apply to strike out a notice of appeal or appeal at any time on limited grounds, but an application may not be brought more than 30 days after service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal
The court set out the text of Rule 86, including the proviso barring applications brought after the expiry of 30 days from service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal. The appellant contended no room exists to enlarge that time; the court's determination rested instead on the applicant's failure to explain his own delay in seeking leave.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to extend time under Rule 4 must be exercised judiciously, weighing the length of delay, explanation, prejudice, undue delay and public interest.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th October, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Mombasa ELC Civil Suit No. 470 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time / leave to file out of time)
Relief refused
#Leave to file an application to strike out the record of appeal out of time
The 2nd respondent failed to disclose when he first became aware of the notice of appeal or the appeal, making it impossible to assess whether the delay was excusable
Costs
Costs to the appellant
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.
The Court in weighing whether or not to extend time will consider; the length of the delay; that the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court; whether there will be prejudice sufiered by the respondent if extension is granted; whether the application is brought without undue delay; and in certain circumstances, public interest.
In the end, the Notice of Motion dated 11th October, 2024 is dismissed. Costs to the appellant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya United Steel Company (2022) Limited v Ahmed & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E141 of 2022) [2025] KECA 854 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (Mombasa ELC Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/854/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.