Abraham Leon Ngaira & 18 others v Sendwave Limited (zepz)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for filing an appeal because the applicants explained a nine-month delay poorly and the respondent had already paid the judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal was satisfactorily explained
It was not. The asserted disagreement among the applicants on representation was unconvincing because the same firm, MAW Advocates LLP, filed the Notice of Appeal and the present application, and must be deemed to have had instructions throughout.
The court applied the Salat principles that a party seeking extension of time bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court. Here the applicants filed a Notice of Appeal through MAW Advocates LLP, who also filed the present application, so the claim of a representation disagreement did not hold. Counsel for the respondent's submission that the delay was unexplained was accepted, and the respondent's non-service with the notice of appeal, leading it to satisfy the judgment, compounded the prejudice.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
Yes. Not having been served with the Notice of Appeal, the respondent satisfied the judgment amount in the belief that the litigation was concluded, and would be prejudiced by having the matter reopened.
Counsel informed the court that the respondent, not having been served with a notice of appeal, adjusted its position and paid the judgment amount on the belief that litigation was at an end. Prejudice to the respondent is one of the Salat considerations, and the court found merit in the argument that reopening the matter would prejudice the respondent. This weighed against the exercise of discretion in the applicants' favour.
Legal principles established
#- 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, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court
- Where a Notice of Appeal is filed by an advocate on record, that firm must be deemed to have had instructions, and an applicant cannot rely on an alleged internal disagreement on representation to explain delay in filing the appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' application dated 11th June 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing an appeal (rules of this Court), as articulated in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abraham Leon Ngaira & 18 others v Sendwave Limited (zepz)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 11th June 2024 (Civil Appeal - extension of time). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/968/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.