Sai Electricals & Hardware Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers (Civil Application E055 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2032 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a company to file its appeal late, ruling that a client who diligently followed up with a negligent lawyer deserves a second chance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the applicant has met the threshold for the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant leave for it to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of about 64 days in filing the notice of appeal was excusable
The delay was adequately explained by the inaction and misleading conduct of the applicant's erstwhile advocate; the applicant followed up and acted promptly upon discovering the omission, so the delay was not inordinate and extension of time was warranted.
The court applied the Supreme Court's test in Chemaringo: a plausible and satisfactory explanation unlocks the discretion. The applicant instructed its former advocate, followed up to confirm filing, discovered the lapse 23 days after expiry, and promptly instructed new counsel who lodged a notice of appeal and this application. The applicant was therefore not indolent, and the respondent's prejudice was not shown.
Legal principles established
#- There is no statutory minimum or maximum period of delay for extension of time; what is required is a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
- A party who follows up with its former advocate and acts promptly on discovering non-filing is not indolent, and the delay attributable to the former advocate is excusable.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The notice of appeal dated 26th July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as properly filed and served
- 3.The applicants are directed to file and serve a record of appeal within 30 days of this ruling
- 4.Costs shall abide the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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.
the law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s fiow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.
In the end, I find that the applicant merits the exercise of this Court’s discretion for the above stated reasons. The application is thus allowed; the annexed notice of appeal dated 26th July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as properly filed and served.
The applicants are directed to file and serve a record of appeal within 30 days of this ruling. Costs shall abide the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states the length of delay as 77 days in submissions and 64 days in the court's own finding, and the notice of appeal is variously dated 29th July 2025 and 26th July 2025.
The name of the respondent before the Court of Appeal is not stated anywhere in the ruling.
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 (Civil Application E055 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2032 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2032/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.