Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNotice of Motion dated 24th February 2025· [2025] KECA 1183 (KLR)

Kiptoo v Kangogo (Civil Application E015 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1183 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
2 July 2025
1,483 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a litigant more time to file his appeal because his lawyer's hospital-documented accident explained the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru (J. Mativo, JA) delivered on 2nd July 2025 on a notice of motion dated 24th February 2025 brought under section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, seeking extension of time to file a record of appeal out of time against the judgment of M. A. Odeny, J. delivered on 3rd October 2024 in Nakuru ELC Case No. 65 of 2019. The applicant explained the delay by pressure of work and a road traffic accident that incapacitated his counsel, supported by hospital receipts and a treatment note, and asserted that his appeal was arguable. The respondent opposed, characterising the delay of nearly four months as inordinate and noting the application followed commencement of execution. The Court computed the 60-day period under rule 84 from the notice of appeal filed 17th October 2024, excluding the Christmas vacation under rule 3(e), and found a delay of about 43 days. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the Court found the explanation plausible and uncontroverted, held the delay not inordinate and well explained, allowed the application, and directed the applicant to file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 43 days in filing the record of appeal was satisfactorily explained

Holding

Yes - counsel's road traffic accident and hospital records established a plausible, well-explained and not inordinate delay, justifying exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour.

Reasoning

The Court applied the principles in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet: delay must be satisfactorily explained and weighed against prejudice to the respondent. Counsel's indisposition following a road traffic accident was supported by official receipts from Annex Hospital and a treatment note, was uncontroverted, and the delay of about 43 days (excluding the Christmas vacation under rule 3(e)) was held not inordinate.

p. 3
02

Computation of the 60-day period for filing the record of appeal

Holding

Time began running on 17th October 2024 when the notice of appeal was lodged and lapsed on or about 17th December 2024; the Christmas vacation period is excluded under rule 3(e).

Reasoning

The Court took judicial notice of the judicial recess and applied rule 3(e) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which excludes the Christmas vacation in computing time, arriving at a delay of about 43 days for the application filed on 24th February 2025.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactorily explained; a plausible explanation is the key to the court's discretionary favour.
  • Extension of time is decided on an objective conspectus of all facts; without a reasonable explanation prospects are immaterial, and without prospects a good explanation does not suffice.
  • An applicant for extension of time must account fully for each period of delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 24th February 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The applicant to file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3A
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2022Rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2022Rule 84
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2022Rule 3(e)

Cases cited (3)

  • George Kagina Kariuki & 2 Others v George M. Gichimu & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Misoi & 2 Others v Muhindi
    Civil Application No. E024 of 2023 [2023] KECA 1295 (KLR)
  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court, Nakuru
Nakuru ELC Case No. 65 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiptoo v Kangogo (Civil Application E015 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1183/eng@2025-07-02

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.