Yego v Kogo (Civil Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1225 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal struck out an unnecessary extension-of-time application, confirming that a certificate of delay already protects appellants waiting for typed proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether enlargement of time was necessary where the proviso to rule 84(1) applies
The application for extension of time was unnecessary because the applicant's predicament — delay in obtaining typed proceedings — is addressed by the proviso to rule 84(1), which excludes the time certified by the registrar for preparation of proceedings; the Notice of Appeal and letter bespeaking proceedings were filed within time.
The Notice of Appeal was filed within time and the letter bespeaking proceedings dated 21st November 2024 was lodged within 30 days as required by the proviso to rule 84(1). The applicant's delay stemmed from the trial court not availing typed proceedings. Rather than granting an extension, the remedy is a certificate of delay under the proviso, which excludes the certified period. Hence an application under rule 4 added nothing.
Whether a single Judge may determine a prayer for stay of execution
A single Judge cannot entertain or determine a prayer for stay of execution; that power rests with a full bench of the Court.
The applicant had included a fourth prayer seeking stay of execution of the decision he intended to appeal. The single Judge held that such a prayer falls outside the docket of a single Judge and is reserved for a full bench, and therefore made no determination on it.
Legal principles established
#- A prayer for stay of execution cannot be determined by a single Judge of the Court of Appeal; it is reserved for a full bench.
- Where typed proceedings are unavailable, the proviso to rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules already protects an appellant by excluding the time certified by the registrar as required for preparation of the proceedings, and an application for extension of time on that ground alone is unnecessary.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th January 2025 is struck out
- 2.The respondent shall have the costs of the application from the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to a single Judge for enlargement of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yego v Kogo (Civil Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1225 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 14th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1225/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.