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 AppealPartially Allowed· [2025] KECA 1712 (KLR)

Wanjohi (Suing as a Personal Representative of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge) v Wahome & 4 others (Civil Application E066 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1712 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
22 October 2025
1,663 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let a daughter appeal late after her father's illness and death, accepting family hardship as a valid reason for missing court deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri, delivered by Ali-Aroni, JA, on 22nd October 2025, on a notice of motion dated 23rd April 2025 seeking leave to appeal out of time under Articles 45 and 53 of the Constitution, section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant, daughter and personal representative of the estate of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge (deceased), sought to challenge a ruling of the High Court (Olola, J) delivered on 9th May 2024 in a land dispute concerning LR No. 275/067 Amboni. She attributed the delay of roughly eleven months to her father's grave ill health (diabetes, cancer and stroke), his death on 17th October 2024, and her ongoing efforts to obtain letters of administration ad litem to give her locus to prosecute the appeal. The respondents opposed, arguing the application was moot because the decree had been fully executed (the land transferred into joint title and subdivided) and that the applicant came to court with unclean hands, her father having earlier agreed to a monetary settlement. The court disregarded the respondents' grounds of opposition as an alien document, since a replying affidavit should have been filed. Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso principles as restated in Dominic Okodoi vs. Republic, the court found the reasons for delay plausible, the draft appeal not frivolous, and granted the extension. The notice of appeal was to issue within seven days, with costs of the application to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of approximately eleven months in seeking to appeal was excusable and whether extension of time should be granted

Holding

Extension of time granted; the reasons for delay (the deceased applicant's father's ill health, death, and the applicant's process of obtaining letters of administration ad litem) were plausible and the draft appeal was not frivolous

Reasoning

The court applied the Leo Sila Mutiso principles under Rule 4. It confined itself to the extension question and not the merits of the intended appeal. The draft grounds of appeal were not frivolous, the reasons for the delay were plausible, and the respondents had filed no replying affidavit, their submissions addressing the merits of the appeal instead. Prejudice to the respondents was not demonstrated.

02

Proper form of response to a Rule 4 extension application

Holding

Grounds of opposition are an alien document in opposing such an application; a replying affidavit should be filed, and the court will ignore improperly filed grounds of opposition

Reasoning

The court held that the respondents' grounds of opposition dated 9th July 2025 were an alien document under the rules of the Court and that the correct response was a replying affidavit. The court therefore elected to ignore the grounds of opposition, though it did not strike them out as sought by the applicant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules confers an unfettered discretion on the Court to extend time, exercised judicially and not on whim, sympathy or caprice
  • In deciding whether to grant an extension of time the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted for filing the notice of appeal and subsequent appeal documents
  2. 2.The notice of appeal shall issue forthwith, and not later than seven (7) days from the date of the ruling, triggering the other steps towards setting the appeal in motion
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 45
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 53
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4

Cases cited (5)

  • Republic vs Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal ex parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR)
  • Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
    [2014] KESC 12 (KLR)
  • Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge
    [2013] eKLR
  • Dominic Okodoi vs. Republic
    [2021] eKLR
  • Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Helen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA p231
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 45 and 53 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanjohi (Suing as a Personal Representative of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge) v Wahome & 4 others (Civil Application E066 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1712 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1712/eng@2025-10-22

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