Kimotho v Muriithi & another (Civil Application E187 of 2025) [2026] KECA 17 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a litigant 14 days late to appeal, but told lawyers to stop bundling stay requests with time-extension applications.
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 should be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of time
The application was allowed. The delay of 14 days was short and not inordinate, was sufficiently explained by counsel's failure to inform the applicant of the judgment, and the proposed grounds of appeal were not frivolous.
Applying the settled Salat guidelines, the court found the applicant had laid a basis for the exercise of discretion: the reason for delay (previous counsel did not inform her of the delivery of judgment) was reasonable, the 14-day delay was not inordinate, and the draft grounds of appeal were not frivolous, indicating an arguable appeal. No response was filed by the respondents. The court therefore exercised its discretion under rule 4 to extend time.
Whether a single judge may entertain an omnibus application combining extension of time with stay of execution and status quo
No. The court treated the application as one solely concerned with extension of time, refusing to deal with the stay and status quo prayers.
The court decried the 'murky and untidy' practice of filing omnibus applications. Under the Court of Appeal Rules, extension of time is the remit of a single judge while stay of execution is for the full court; the two cannot be heard in instalments in one application, and stay cannot be obtained before a notice of appeal is filed. In deference to Article 159(2)(d), the single judge confined himself to the extension prayer.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge of the Court of Appeal can only deal with an application for extension of time; stay of execution is for the full bench, and omnibus applications combining both are improper.
- The considerations governing extension of time under rule 4 are those summarised in Salat v. IEBC: extension is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay, prejudice, undue delay and, where relevant, public interest.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to lodge the notice of appeal out of time
- 2.The notice of appeal is deemed as duly lodged
- 3.The notice of appeal may be served within the next 7 (seven) days
- 4.The record of appeal be filed and served within the next 30 days
- 5.Costs of the application to 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
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 47 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (enlargement of time by a single judge); Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked by the court as quoted authority
Relief refused
#Stay of execution and status quo orders sought in the omnibus application
A single judge can only deal with extension of time; stay of execution is the business of the full court and could only be moved after a successful extension application.
Costs
Costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal.
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 notice of appeal is deemed as duly lodged and may be served within the next 7 (seven) days. The record of appeal be filed and served within the next 30 days.
Costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal.
Extension of time is not right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
This practice is murky and untidy. This Court, presided over by a single judge, can only deal with an extension of time.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the applicant inconsistently by gender, stating 'she states that judgement of the High Court was delivered' but later 'Should the applicant be successful, he may apply for other orders'.
The parties, case number and citation are not identified in the judgment extract; the applicant and respondents are unnamed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimotho v Muriithi & another (Civil Application E187 of 2025) [2026] KECA 17 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 22nd December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/17/eng@2026-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.