Kiarago v Mathews t/a Matbronze Wildlife Art (Civil Application E491 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1110 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal gave a Kenyan employee extra time to file her appeal, showing courts forgive short delays with honest explanations.
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 Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether time should be extended for filing the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 3.Whether the delay of about 2 months and 20 days was inordinate and sufficiently explained
- 4.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted
Key legal issues
#Length of delay in filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal
A delay of about 2 months and 20 days, where the Notice of Appeal was filed within the stipulated timeline, was not inordinate.
The impugned judgment was delivered on 10th July 2024 and the Notice of Appeal was filed on 12th July 2024, within time. The motion seeking extension was filed on or about 1st October 2024, a delay of about 2 months and 20 days, which the court considered not inordinate in the circumstances of the case.
Reason for the delay
Counsel's absence on leave and inadvertent failure to update the register and file the appeal constituted a reasonable and plausible explanation, especially as the motion was filed almost immediately upon counsel's return.
The applicant explained that her counsel went on leave on 16th August 2024 and inadvertently failed to update the register and file the appeal, returning on 30th September 2024, after which the motion was filed on 1st October 2024. The court found these reasons reasonable and plausible and the delay sufficiently explained.
Arguability of the intended appeal
A Single Judge hearing a Rule 4 extension application should not make definitive findings on the arguability of the intended appeal.
The court declined to delve into the merits of the intended appeal, holding that it would not be in its place to make definitive findings on arguability when sitting as a Single Judge on an extension-of-time application.
Prejudice to the respondent
No prejudice would be suffered where the impugned judgment dismissed the claim and granted no orders to either party.
The court was satisfied that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the extension because the impugned judgment merely dismissed the applicant's claim and granted no orders to either party, meaning the status quo would not be altered by allowing the appeal to be filed.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding an application to extend time under Rule 4, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the arguability of the appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent, exercising a wide but judicious discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated 1st October 2024 is allowed as prayed
- 2.Leave granted to file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time against the judgment in Nairobi ELRC Cause No. E208 of 2023
- 3.Time extended for filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders shall stand vacated
- 4.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of 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, Nairobi
- Nairobi ELRC Cause No. E208 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 59 of the Constitution (as cited in the motion), Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 4, 41 and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010
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.
Accordingly, the applicant's motion dated 1st October 2024, is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed. The applicant shall proceed to file her Memorandum and Record of Appeal within 30 days from the date of this ruling, failure to which these orders shall stand vacated.
The costs of this motion shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
The Court has wide and unfettered discretion in deciding whether to extend time or not. However, in exercising its discretion, the Court should do so judiciously.
first the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites Rule 4 of 'the Court of Appeal Rules' and the motion invokes the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, while the respondent's submissions refer to the Court of Appeal Rules 2022; the applicable rules version is not clarified.
Paragraph numbering in the judgment is erratic and non-sequential (repeated numbers 12-15 appear multiple times).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiarago v Mathews t/a Matbronze Wildlife Art (Civil Application E491 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 1st October 2024 (Single Judge, Court of Appeal, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1110/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.