Kirinyaga County Public Service Board v Kenya National Union of Nurses; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Civil Application E156 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2152 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed an employer to appeal 15 months late, ruling an honest lawyer's mistake shouldn't shut a diligent litigant out of justice.
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 is deserving of the order of extension of time to file its intended appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the certificate of urgency was merited (found moot)
Key legal issues
#Whether the 15-month delay and mistaken filing of an application for leave justify refusal of an extension of time
The explanation of a mistaken belief that leave to appeal was required was an honest admission; the withdrawn leave application showed intent to appeal; the delay was not inordinate given the issues raised.
The Court applied the established factors: length of and reason for delay, prejudice, conduct of parties, chances of success. Counsel's mistaken belief that leave was required was honestly explained and the erroneous application was withdrawn, demonstrating intent to appeal. Where a litigant relies on counsel's advice, an acknowledged honest mistake should not shut out the litigant. Other applications filed were not shown to amount to sitting idle. The intended appeal, raising conflicting decisions of the trial court, was not frivolous, so the 15-month delay was not inordinate in the circumstances.
Whether the intended appeal was frivolous
The intended appeal did not appear frivolous given the ground that there are two conflicting decisions of the trial court.
Considering the intended grounds of appeal, in particular the contention that the trial court issued two conflicting decisions - a judgment of 27th April 2023 prohibiting enforcement of reinstatement and a ruling of 26th July 2024 adopting that reinstatement - the Court found arguable issues, and that it was in the best interests of both parties to have the matter settled one way or the other on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An honest and acknowledged mistake of counsel should not be visited on an innocent litigant who has not sat idle; the door of justice should not be closed on such a litigant.
- In an extension-of-time application the single judge does not definitively determine the merits of the intended appeal, which is for the full Court.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is allowed
- 2.The notice of appeal be filed and served not later than seven (7) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The record of appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the notice of appeal
- 4.Costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 (ruling of 26th July 2024; judgment of 27th April 2023)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and 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 question that lingers in my mind is whether an honest and acknowledged mistake of counsel should be visited on a litigant, especially where there is no demonstration that the litigant sat idle. I think not.
I find that, the 15-month delay is not inordinate, given the issues proposed for this Court’s determination.
a. the notice of appeal be filed and served not later than seven (7) days from today's date.
Costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records that the applicant filed an application for further stay and leave on 5th August 2025 in one passage and on 5th August 2024 in another, an apparent internal inconsistency in dates.
The application is dated 22nd October 2025 but the replying affidavit is stated to be dated 2nd December 2025 while counsel's submissions for the respondent are also dated 2nd December 2025; the chronology is internally compressed and may contain a typographical date error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirinyaga County Public Service Board v Kenya National Union of Nurses; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Civil Application E156 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2152/eng@2025-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.