Langat v Langat (Civil Application E062 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1239 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to rescue a late appeal, confirming you must file a notice of appeal on time — typed proceedings or not.
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 delay in filing the Notice of Appeal has been satisfactorily explained
- 2.Whether the respondent will be prejudiced should time be enlarged
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 5 months in filing the Notice of Appeal was satisfactorily explained
The explanation that typed proceedings were not availed in time is unsatisfactory because Rule 77 imposes no obligation to secure typed proceedings before filing a Notice of Appeal.
The Court applied Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 and the Supreme Court's dictum in University of Eldoret v Sitienei that filing a Notice of Appeal is not conditioned on any occurrence or precondition. Since the notice signifies intention to appeal, delay in obtaining typed proceedings cannot justify late filing. The applicant also failed to act equitably as required by Salat.
Whether an application for extension of time can regularize a Notice of Appeal filed outside the prescribed time
No. Without a valid notice of appeal on record, an application to enlarge time to file a record or memorandum of appeal cannot be entertained.
The Court noted that although the motion was couched as an extension-of-time application, its 2nd and 3rd orders sought regularization of an invalid Notice of Appeal. Following Kathuri v Munyoki, an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal does not itself substitute for the requirement to file a notice of appeal within time or with leave. There was thus no proper notice upon which the application could be based.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if time were enlarged
Not squarely determined, as the application failed on the antecedent grounds of unsatisfactory explanation and lack of a valid notice of appeal.
The respondent deposed that she had executed the High Court judgment and would be prejudiced by continued delay. However, the Court dismissed the application primarily because the delay was unexplained and no valid notice of appeal existed, rendering the prejudice inquiry unnecessary.
Legal principles established
#- An appellant need not obtain typed proceedings before filing a Notice of Appeal; unavailability of proceedings is not a satisfactory reason for delay in filing the notice.
- An application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal does not excuse the absence of a valid notice of appeal on record.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 29th November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Kapsabet HCCC No. E002 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (inherent discretion to extend time; Rule 77 cited)
Relief refused
#Leave to file appeal out of time / regularization of Notice of Appeal filed out of time
Delay of approximately 5 months unsatisfactorily explained; no valid Notice of Appeal on record; applicant not candid in couching the application
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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.
The notice of motion dated 29th November 2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 does not place an obligation on an appellant to secure the typed proceedings before filing a Notice of Appeal.
The applicant is not candid in the manner in which the application is couched. He seeks the regularization of an invalid Notice of Appeal without providing any valid reason as to why the Notice of Appeal was not filed within the prescribed time.
Equity cannot therefore come to his aid in such circumstances.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat v Langat (Civil Application E062 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1239 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 29th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1239/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.