Muasya v Kilonzo & 2 others (Civil Application E488 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1111 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted a litigant extra time to file her appeal because the court registry's own 132-day delay caused the missed deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether delay occasioned by the court registry's late preparation of proceedings justifies extension of time
Delay attributable to the court's own late preparation of proceedings, evidenced by a Certificate of Delay, is a reasonable and plausible reason and suffices to explain the delay in filing the Record of Appeal.
The applicant applied for certified proceedings on the day of judgment and filed a Notice of Appeal within time. The registry took 132 days to prepare the proceedings, evidenced by a Certificate of Delay. The applicant then filed the motion within about 6 days. Delay by the registry should not be visited upon the litigant, and such short residual delay is not inordinate.
Whether a single judge may determine the arguability of the intended appeal
Sitting as a single judge, the court declined to make definitive findings on the arguability of the intended appeal.
The court noted that assessing the merits of the intended appeal is not appropriate at the single-judge stage of a Rule 4 application, leaving that question to the full court if the appeal is filed.
Whether the respondents would be prejudiced by the extension
No prejudice was established; the respondents, though served, did not respond and the suit property remained vacant and unimproved.
The respondents were served with the motion and the Notice of Appeal but did not respond or controvert the applicant's claim that the property was vacant. Their awareness of the intention to appeal meant extension would cause them no prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- The decision whether or not to extend time for appealing is discretionary, guided by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated 27th September 2024 is allowed as prayed
- 2.The applicant shall file the intended appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders shall stand vacated
- 3.The costs of the motion shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Machakos
- ELCA 18/2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 1(2), 4, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 53 and 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules (2010); Sections 3(2), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 27(1), 40, 50(1) and 159(2)(a),(b),(d),(e) of the Constitution (invoked by the applicant)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muasya v Kilonzo & 2 others (Civil Application E488 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice on Motion dated 27th September 2024 (single judge application under Rule 4). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1111/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.