Embassy of Sweden, Nairobi v Kusewa & another (Civil Application Sup E002 of 2020) [2025] KECA 1337 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave Sweden's Embassy 14 more days to seek Supreme Court review of an employment loss, confirming delays can be excused.
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 extension of time to file an application for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Whether the delay of about 79 days was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Extension of time for seeking certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The delay of about 79 days was not inordinate given the change of advocates and internal consultations, and no prejudice to the respondents was shown; extension was granted.
The court applied the Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat principles: extension is equitable and discretionary, the applicant must lay a basis and explain the delay, and prejudice to respondents must be considered. The affidavit evidence explaining the change of advocates from Hamilton Harrison & Matthews to Mohammed Muigai LLP and the correspondence following judgment satisfied the court that the delay was not inordinate and that the respondents would not suffer prejudice.
Division of functions between single judge and full bench
Extension of time is a single judge matter; certification, leave and stay must be handled by a three-judge bench.
The court clarified that under the Rules of the Court, only the prayer for extension of time could be determined by a single judge; the remaining prayers, including certification that a matter of general public importance arises and grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, fall to be determined by a three-judge bench of the Court.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy granted only to deserving parties on a case-by-case basis, applying the Salat principles
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time for the applicant to file the notice of motion for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 24th April 2020, to be filed within 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- ELRC No. 2193 of 2015 and ELRC No. 2194 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules of the Court of Appeal - single judge discretion to extend time for seeking certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
Relief refused
#The remaining prayers (stay of proceedings, certification, and leave to appeal)
Reserved for a full bench
Costs
The costs of this application shall be borne by the applicant.
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.
I hereby extend time for the applicant to file the notice of motion for the certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya against the judgment and orders of this court dated 24th April 2020. The application should be filed within 14 days from the date hereof.
The costs of this application shall be borne by the applicant.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
Given the nature of the dispute, and the fact that the applicant had decided to change its advocates, and the correspondence that took place between the applicant’s advocates following the delivery of the impugned judgment, I do not think that the delay is inordinate.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records that the application came up for hearing on 9th July 2025 although the application is dated 19th August 2020, indicating a roughly five-year gap between filing and hearing that is not explained on the face of the ruling
The judgment describes the impugned decision as that of this court (W Karanja, H Okwengu & F Sichale, JJA) dated 24th April 2020, but the appealFrom fields of the underlying ELRC decision and the Court of Appeal decision are intertwined in the narrative
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Embassy of Sweden, Nairobi v Kusewa & another (Civil Application Sup E002 of 2020) [2025] KECA 1337 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Rule in Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2017 (application dated 19th August 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1337/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.