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 AppealAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KECA 2025 (KLR)

Sai Electricals & Hardware Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 November 2025
1,032 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a company to appeal late because it acted quickly after discovering its lawyer had failed to file the notice of appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Eldoret on a notice of motion dated 1st September 2025 by Sai Electrical & Hardware Limited under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, seeking extension of time to lodge and serve a notice of appeal and validation of a notice of appeal dated 29th July 2025. The application followed a judgment of the Employment & Labour Relations Court delivered on 11th July 2025. The applicant explained that it instructed its erstwhile advocate to lodge a notice of appeal, but the advocate took no action while misleading the applicant into believing a notice had been filed; the applicant discovered the omission on 20th July 2025, instructed current advocates, who filed a notice of appeal dated 29th July 2025 (lodged 4th August 2025), and then brought the present application. The application was unopposed despite service. Adopting the Supreme Court's guidance in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the court framed the single question as whether the applicant had satisfactorily explained the delay and whether the respondent would suffer prejudice. It found the applicant was not indolent, having followed up within days of the expiry of the filing period, and held that the delay of about 37 days was not inordinate and was excusable. The application was allowed; the notice of appeal was deemed properly filed and served; the applicant was directed to file and serve a record of appeal within 30 days; and costs were made to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 37 days in lodging the notice of appeal was excusable

Holding

The delay was not inordinate and was excusable because the applicant promptly followed up with its former advocate, discovered the inaction within days, and moved swiftly to instruct new advocates and file the application.

Reasoning

The court found the applicant was not indolent: it followed up with its erstwhile advocate only 4 days after the expiry of the period for filing the notice of appeal, and upon discovering that no notice had been lodged, it promptly instructed current advocates who filed the notice and the application. A litigant should not be penalised for an advocate's inaction where the litigant remains vigilant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Any delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactorily explained; a plausible and satisfactory explanation is the key that unlocks the court's flow of discretionary favour.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to lodge and serve notice of appeal
  2. 2.The notice of appeal dated 29th July 2025 deemed as properly filed and served
  3. 3.Applicants directed to file and serve a record of appeal within 30 days of the ruling
  4. 4.Costs shall abide the appeal
On appeal from
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sai Electricals & Hardware Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2025/eng@2025-11-27

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