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 AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment

Ochiel v Kenya Revenue Authority (Civil Application E617 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1963 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
21 November 2025
713 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed an extension of time application because the applicant offered no explanation for a two-year delay in filing his appeal record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered by D. K. Musinga, JA (President) on 21st November 2025 on the applicant's notice of motion dated 15th November 2024 seeking extension of time to file and serve a record of appeal from a ruling of Maureen Onyango, J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 30th November 2018. The application was unopposed, but the court held it was still duty bound to consider its merits. Applying the settled criteria in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2 EA 331 - length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent - the court examined the chronology. The applicant's advocate requested certified copies on the day of the ruling, but there was a gap of nearly 2½ years before a reminder in May 2021; proceedings were collected on 24th August 2022 and the certified ruling on 29th November 2022. From 29th November 2022 until 15th November 2024, when the application was filed, nothing was done, with no explanation beyond a changed mobile telephone number, which the court held was insufficient. Finding the delay inordinate and unexplained, the court declined to consider the prospects of the intended appeal or prejudice to the respondent, holding that the applicant's lethargy disentitled him from the exercise of the Court's discretion. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs, the respondent having filed nothing in opposition. The decision below was not disturbed; no appeal record was placed before the Court.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file and serve a record of appeal from the judgment of Maureen Onyango, J delivered on 30th November 2018

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was adequately explained

Holding

The application was dismissed because there was no explanation for the delay from 29th November 2022 (when the certified ruling was collected) to 15th November 2024 (when the application was filed); a change of mobile telephone number was insufficient

Reasoning

The court traced the timeline: the ruling was delivered on 30th November 2018, proceedings were collected on 24th August 2022 and the certified ruling on 29th November 2022. From then until 15th November 2024 nothing was done and no explanation was offered. The court held the applicant could have contacted his advocate by visiting chambers or sending an email, so the delay was inordinate and unexplained, disentitling him from the discretionary relief. It was unnecessary to consider chances of success or prejudice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The decision whether or not to extend time for appealing is discretionary, and the Court considers the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent
  • An applicant seeking extension of time must satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay; unexplained inordinate delay disentitles the applicant from the exercise of the Court's discretion regardless of the merits of the intended appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing and serving a record of appeal (Court of Appeal Rules procedure; no specific provision quoted in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal

There was no explanation for the inordinate delay of nearly two years after collection of the certified copy of the ruling; the applicant's lethargy disentitled him from the exercise of the Court's discretion

p. 2

Costs

No orders as to costs since the respondent did not file anything in opposition to the application

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.

Consequently, this application is dismissed. I make no orders as to costs since the respondent did not file anything in opposition to the application.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of the extension-of-time application
Sufice it to say that the applicant’s lethargy disentitles him from the exercise of this Court’s discretion in his favour.
p. 2Unexplained inordinate delay defeats the discretion to extend time
It is not suficient for the applicant to state that he was unable to contact his advocate because of a change of his mobile telephone number.
p. 2Inadequacy of the explanation offered for the delay

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The coram lists only one judge, D. K. Musinga, described as President and Judge of Appeal; the judgment does not state the case number, neutral citation, or the parties' names, and the court below is identified only from the Deputy Registrar's title ('Employment and Labour Relations Court')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ochiel v Kenya Revenue Authority (Civil Application E617 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1963/eng@2025-11-21

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