Charles Kitui Rombosia v Silas Simiyu Murunga & 7 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse a 14-month appeal delay, ruling that blaming your lawyer doesn't shift responsibility from you to follow up your own case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reasons for the delay of over a year justify extension of time under Rule 4
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; the applicant produced no letter of instructions and his own inaction (including awareness of taxation proceedings) defeated the claim.
The court applied the established Rule 4 factors: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice. Judgment was delivered on 12 October 2023; the application was filed on 9 December 2024. The applicant offered no documentary proof of instructions to prior counsel, and post-judgment activity (taxation) showed he was aware of the matter yet took no appeal steps.
Whether mistake of counsel is a sufficient reason for extension of time
No - a litigant bears primary responsibility to follow up their case even when represented.
Relying on Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo, the court reiterated that parties cannot simply blame advocates for all transgressions; the case belongs to the litigant, who must show interest in and follow up on the litigation. Blaming counsel without verification does not satisfy the extension-of-time principles.
Whether the merits of the intended appeal should be assessed by a single judge
A single judge cannot determine the merits of an intended appeal with finality when considering extension of time.
Citing Athuman Nasura Juma v Afwa Mohammed Ramadhan, the court noted it must be careful not to finally determine the merits of an intended appeal at the single-judge stage; the chances-of-success factor is considered only in a limited, non-final way.
Legal principles established
#- An alleged mistake of counsel does not of itself cure a litigant's own inaction; the primary responsibility to act within prescribed timelines rests on the litigant.
- A single judge of the Court of Appeal must not determine with finality whether an intended appeal has merit.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2024 seeking extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Trial court (superior court) - name not stated in the judgment
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion to extend time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Kitui Rombosia v Silas Simiyu Murunga & 7 others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1645/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.