Sang v Letting (Suing as Legal Representative of Josphat Letting - Deceased) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E026 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot use Rule 5(2)(b) to fast-track an appeal; priority hearings must be sought differently.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a single Judge may, under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, order that a pending appeal be heard on a priority basis
- 2.Whether the application dated 8th July 2024 seeking prioritization of the appeal hearing is properly brought and grantable
Key legal issues
#Whether a single Judge may order priority hearing of an appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)
The application was disallowed because Rule 5(2)(b) does not accommodate a prayer for priority hearing, and no basis was shown that such an order is grantable by a single Judge
The court observed that Rule 5(2)(b) exists to grant interim relief pending appeal - injunctions, stay of execution or stay of proceedings - none of which was sought. The Rules contain no mechanism for certifying an appeal as urgent. The established practice is first-in first-out listing, with priority achievable only by a full bench in a properly brought Rule 5(2)(b) application, or informally through the Presiding Judge of a Station or Division or the President of the Court exercising absolute discretion. The application therefore had no legal home.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules donates jurisdiction only for interim orders of injunction, stay of execution or stay of proceedings pending appeal, and cannot be invoked to seek a priority hearing of an appeal
- There is no rule permitting certification of an appeal as urgent; appeals are heard first-in first-out, and priority may be ordered by a full bench or sought informally from the Presiding Judge or President of the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th July 2024 seeking priority hearing of the pending appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, invoked by the applicant
Relief refused
#Order that the pending appeal be heard and determined on a priority basis over other appeals filed earlier
The application was brought under Rule 5(2)(b), which donates jurisdiction only for injunctions, stay of execution or stay of proceedings pending appeal, and there is no rule permitting certification of an appeal as urgent by a single Judge; what is sought is not grantable by a single Judge
Costs
No order as to costs - 'It is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.'
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 practice adopted by the Court, as far as appeals are concerned is that they are listed for hearing and disposal on a first-in first-out basis.
It is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the appeal number, the respondent's name, or the application's case number, limiting identification of the file
There is no indication that the motion was served on the respondent's advocates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sang v Letting (Suing as Legal Representative of Josphat Letting - Deceased) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E026 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1418/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.