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 AppealAllowedCivil Application (Rule 4) arising from Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2018· [2025] KECA 2046 (KLR)

Tom Chore Odiara & 1 other v Falcon Properties Ltd & 1 other

Court of Appeal
28 November 2025
509 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal granted extra time for a short 3-day delay to seek Supreme Court review, requiring the application to be filed within 7 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered on 28 November 2025 by W. Karanja, JA, on an application for enlargement of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The background is that on 22 August 2025 the Court of Appeal, in Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2018, overturned a judgment of the Environment and Land Court that had favoured the 1st applicant. Wishing to appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicants first needed an application for certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution. They contended that they could not obtain their file timeously after delivery of the judgment, resulting in a 3-day delay in filing the certification application, and therefore sought extension of time. The application was unopposed, no replying affidavit or submissions having been filed despite service. The court applied the well-established Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi factors governing the Rule 4 discretion, and also referred to Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd. Holding that a 3-day delay was not inordinate, that the explanation was plausible, and that the intended issues for certification were not frivolous, the judge allowed the application. The certification application was ordered to be filed and served within 7 days, failing which the leave would automatically lapse. No costs order appears on the face of the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a 3-day delay in filing an application for certification is inordinate

Holding

A delay of 3 days is not inordinate, and where the explanation is plausible and the intended issues are not frivolous, extension of time should be granted.

Reasoning

The single judge exercised the Rule 4 discretion by applying the Fakir Mohammed factors. The delay was short, the explanation (the file not being availed in time after judgment) was accepted as plausible, the respondents did not oppose, and the intended certification issues were found not frivolous. The application was allowed subject to a 7-day filing condition.

p. 2
02

Non-opposition by respondents

Holding

The application was unopposed as no replying affidavit or submissions were filed despite service.

Reasoning

The court noted service of the hearing notice and application on the respondents, who filed neither a replying affidavit nor submissions. The decision therefore proceeded on an unopposed basis, though the court still independently applied the Rule 4 factors.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The factors governing extension of time under Rule 4 are those set out in Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi: period of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, prejudice to the respondent, effect on public administration, importance of compliance with time limits, resources of the parties and public importance - all relevant but not exhaustive.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to enlarge time to file the application for certification
  2. 2.The application for certification to be filed and served within 7 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the leave granted will automatically lapse
On appeal from
Court of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution intended)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tom Chore Odiara & 1 other v Falcon Properties Ltd & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (Rule 4) arising from Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2046/eng@2025-11-28

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