Gitonga Gerrard Ndii & 7 others v The County Government of Tharaka Nithi
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because the applicants never explained their delay, and had already paid the licence fees in dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Reason for the delay
The delay of over 2½ months from the ruling being uploaded to the electronic platform (9th May 2025) to the making of the application (25th July 2025) was unexplained and unreasonable
The court acknowledged the applicants' claim that systemic and administrative hurdles (transfer of the Judge, movement of the physical file, delayed upload of the ruling) caused the initial delay, but found that the applicants did not explain the further period of over two and a half months between availing of the ruling and the filing of the application, so the total delay was not reasonably accounted for.
Chances of the appeal succeeding
The intended appeal had no chances of success because the applicants had already paid the requisite Single Business Permit Fees, meaning the underlying dispute was overtaken by events
The respondent produced evidence of payment of licence fees by the applicants. The court took this into account both on prejudice/overtaken-by-events and on the merits factor, reasoning that since the trial Judge had dismissed the petition and the licences had been paid for, the intended appeal stood no realistic prospect of success, one of the Mutiso principles.
Exercise of discretion on extension of time
Discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles per Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, and on the facts the applicants were not deserving of the equitable remedy
The court applied the settled four-factor Mutiso test: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondent. The respondent, a public body, would suffer continued disruption of its lawful licensing functions, and the applicants failed to establish sufficient cause. On balance the discretion was exercised against the applicants.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under rule 4 is discretionary and is governed by the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of prayers 5 and 6 of the Motion dated 25th July 2025 (leave to appeal and extension of time)
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Chuka
- Chuka Constitutional Petition No. E002 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time) with leave to appeal under the Court's single-Judge powers
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gitonga Gerrard Ndii & 7 others v The County Government of Tharaka Nithi", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 25th July, 2025 (rule 4 application, Court of Appeal at Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1747/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.