Mugambi v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others (Civil Application 68 of 2020) [2025] KECA 1490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that Covid-19 could not excuse a late appeal filed after the deadline had already expired before restrictions began.
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 single Judge misdirected herself by disregarding a relevant matter, considering an irrelevant matter, misapprehending the evidence or law, or arriving at a plainly wrong decision in dismissing the application for extension of time
- 2.Whether the Covid-19 pandemic and the attendant government movement restrictions excused the applicant's failure to lodge the record of appeal within the statutory sixty days
Key legal issues
#Standard of interference by the full Court with a single Judge's discretionary decision under Rule 4
The full Court will not interfere unless the single Judge disregarded a relevant matter, considered an irrelevant matter, misapprehended the evidence or law, or was plainly wrong.
The Court relied on its earlier decision in John Koyi Waluke v Moses Masika Wetangula, restating that a single Judge exercising the unfettered discretion under Rule 4 does so on behalf of the whole Court. Interference is confined to established misdirection or plain wrongness; disagreement with the outcome is not a ground for interference on a reference.
Whether Covid-19 movement restrictions justified the delay in filing the record of appeal
No. The applicant's sixty days under Rule 84(1) expired on 21st March 2020, before the restrictions were gazetted on 6th April 2020.
The notice of appeal was filed on 21st January 2020, so the statutory sixty days lapsed on 21st March 2020, prior to the government's gazette notice of 6th April 2020 restricting movement. The pandemic could not therefore explain the failure to lodge the record in time, and the single Judge's conclusion on this point was correct.
Whether the single Judge erred in finding that the applicant would not suffer irreparable loss
The Court found no error; the applicant failed to establish any misapprehension or wrong decision on this point.
The applicant asserted that he stood to lose the suit property, but the single Judge found that claim unfounded. On the reference, the full Court was unable to discern any abuse or improper exercise of discretion and could not fault the single Judge's decision on the irreparable loss claim.
Legal principles established
#- A full bench on a reference may interfere with a single Judge's Rule 4 discretion only where the single Judge took into account an irrelevant matter, failed to take into account a relevant matter, misapprehended the evidence or law, or was plainly wrong; it is not enough that the full Court would have reached a different result.
Court orders
#- 1.The application (reference) is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (decision of single Judge, Okwengu JA)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules (reference to the full Court from a decision of a single Judge made under Rule 4)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time
The sixty-day period under Rule 84(1) expired before the Covid-19 movement restrictions were imposed, and the applicant failed to show any error in the single Judge's exercise of discretion
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
It is not enough, for example, to show the full Court that had it been sitting in place of the single Judge, it would have arrived at a difierent result.
the notice of appeal having been filed on 21st January, 2020, the applicant had sixty days to file his record of appeal, which period lapsed on 21st March, 2020, way before movement restrictions were imposed by the government
The application therefore lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the names of the parties or the case number of the underlying appeal; the parties are identified only as 'the applicant' and the '1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents', and the reference number is not given.
The judgment does not reproduce the case number or full details of the underlying High Court decision of Mabeya J., and the filing date discrepancy is explained (notice of appeal filed 21st January 2020; restriction gazetted 6th April 2020), so no internal contradiction arises; however the intended appeal details are sparse.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugambi v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others (Civil Application 68 of 2020) [2025] KECA 1490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Reference under Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1490/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.