Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (arising from Eldoret ELRC No. 45 of 2020)· [2025] KECA 2034 (KLR)

Immaculate Nyaseba Marwa v University of Eastern Africa Baraton

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 November 2025
MGM. Gachoka
1,075 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 late appeal because the applicant acted quickly and obtained a certificate of delay—speed and documentation can excuse missed deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal against a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret delivered on 6th March 2025 in Eldoret ELRC No. 45 of 2020. The applicant lodged her notice of appeal on 7th March 2025, served it on 10th March 2025, and promptly requested certified typed proceedings, judgment and decree. She obtained a certificate of delay issued on 7th August 2025 and received by her counsel on 19th August 2025. The respondent opposed, arguing that typed proceedings were ready and collected on 25th July 2025, so the delay thereafter was inordinate and unexplained. The Court applied the settled principles from Fahir Mohammed vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others, which compile the non-exhaustive Rule 4 factors including length and explanation of delay, arguability, and prejudice. Finding that the applicant moved with speed upon becoming dissatisfied and had obtained a certificate of delay computing the delay, the Court held she met the Rule 4 threshold. It granted leave and directed filing of the memorandum and record of appeal within 30 days, with costs of the application to abide the appeal's outcome. The decision below was not disturbed; this was an interlocutory discretionary ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the Rule 4 principles for extension of time

Holding

The Court found the applicant acted promptly after the impugned judgment and obtained a certificate of delay, satisfying the Rule 4 threshold.

Reasoning

The applicant lodged her notice of appeal on 7th March 2025 and served it on 10th March 2025. She promptly requested certified proceedings and a certificate of delay, which was issued on 7th August 2025 and received by her counsel on 19th August 2025. The Court accepted that the delay was attributable to obtaining the record rather than inaction, and that the threshold in the Fahir Mohammed principles was met.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The factors relevant to a Rule 4 extension-of-time application are numerous and non-exhaustive, since the discretion is unfettered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to lodge and file the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time against the judgment in Eldoret ELRC No. 45 of 2020 delivered on 6th March 2025
  2. 2.Applicant directed to file the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal within 30 days from the date of the order
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Eldoret
ELRC No. 45 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Immaculate Nyaseba Marwa v University of Eastern Africa Baraton", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arising from Eldoret ELRC No. 45 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2034/eng@2025-11-27

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