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 AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1389 (KLR)

David Ochieng Ogola v Bob Morgan Services Limited

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

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a 20-day late appeal, showing courts will forgive short, well-explained delays when the applicant acts quickly once aware of the mistake.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu, delivered on 30th July 2025 by L. Kimaru, JA, on a notice of motion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking leave to lodge a notice of appeal out of time. The applicant was aggrieved by a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 19th February 2025. He attributed the delay in filing the notice of appeal to miscommunication: he mistakenly assumed that the office of Occupational Safety and Health Services could enforce compliance, which proved not to be the case. The respondent opposed the application, disputing that the intended appeal had chances of success, contending that the Court lacked jurisdiction over any challenge to a decision of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, and arguing that no sufficient reason for the delay was shown. The Court restated the settled Rule 4 factors - the reason for and length of the delay, possible prejudice to the respondent, and the strength of the intended appeal - citing Ngei v. Kibe & another [2021] KECA 242 (KLR). Holding that the applicant moved the Court timeously upon discovering his remedy lay in appeal, and that a 20-day delay was not inordinate, the Court found the respondent's objections went to the merits, on which the respondent would have its day in court. The application was allowed: leave to appeal out of time was granted, the notice of appeal to be filed and served within fourteen days, with costs of the application to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 20 days in lodging the notice of appeal was inordinate and whether a sufficient reason was shown

Holding

The delay of 20 days was not inordinate; the applicant acted timeously and with diligence once he learned that his remedy lay in an appeal to this Court, and the respondent would have its day in court on the merits.

Reasoning

The Court applied the Rule 4 factors. It found the explanation - miscommunication arising from the applicant's mistaken assumption that the Occupational Safety and Health Offices could enforce compliance - acceptable, noting that the applicant moved the Court timeously upon discovering his remedy lay in appeal. A 20-day delay was held not inordinate and no prejudice to the respondent was established; the respondent's objection went to the merits of the intended appeal, which could be ventilated at the hearing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary and unfettered, and in exercising it the Court must consider the reason for the delay, the length of the delay, possible prejudice to the respondent, and the strength or otherwise of the intended appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed
  2. 2.The applicant is granted leave to appeal out of time
  3. 3.The notice of appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen days of the date of the ruling
  4. 4.The respondent shall have the costs of the application
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretionary jurisdiction to extend time for lodging a notice of appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Ochieng Ogola v Bob Morgan Services Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1389/eng@2025-07-30

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