Oceanview Plaza Limited v C.B. Gor & Gor (Civil Application E077 of 2025) [2026] KECA 41 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse an 11-month delay in filing an appeal, holding that waiting to confirm a security deposit is not a valid reason.
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 satisfied this Court that it is entitled to extension and/or enlargement of time for filing the Notice and Record of Appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 11 months in filing the Notice and Record of Appeal was excusable
The delay was inordinate and inexcusable; the excuse of awaiting confirmation of the status of a security deposit of Kshs.5,000,000 was not a valid reason for delay.
The court held there is no legal basis for a litigant to wait for confirmation of a security deposit before filing a Notice of Appeal under Rule 77(2). The applicant filed close to a year after the impugned ruling, demonstrating disinterest in appealing and an intention to delay justice. Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act obligate the Court to ensure expeditious and just adjudication, and the applicant's inaction negated timely dispute resolution.
The applicable principles for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously, guided by settled principles: length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the respondent, conduct of parties, balancing interests, public interest and arguability of the intended appeal.
The court restated the well-settled principles from Muringa Company Limited, Leo Sila Mutiso, Paul Wanjohi Mathenge and the Supreme Court's decision in Salat v IEBC. Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who lays a basis for it, considered on a case-to-case basis.
Legal principles established
#- A party need not confirm the status of a security deposit in the trial court before commencing appeal proceedings; there is no law, principle or rule requiring this before filing a Notice of Appeal.
- In an extension-of-time application, the court considers the length of delay, reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the interests of the party with a favourable decision.
- The wide discretion under Rule 4 must be exercised judiciously, not whimsically or on caprice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Mombasa High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 75 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2) of the Constitution; Rules 4, 41 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 9
Relief refused
#Leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time against the Ruling delivered on 19th October 2023
The delay of close to a year (11 months) was inordinate and inexcusable; the excuse of awaiting confirmation of the status of a security deposit was not a proper excuse
Deeming the Notice of Appeal dated 26th July 2024 as duly filed and properly on record
The applicant's indolence and inaction militated against grant of the orders sought
Deeming the amended Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. E098 of 2024 as duly filed
The application was merely intended to clog the wheels of justice
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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 Court should first consider the length of the delay; the applicant should at the very least explain the reasons for the delay; the need to balance the interests of a party who has a decision in his or her favour; and lastly, the degree of prejudice which the respondent would sufier if the application was to be granted.
There is no law, principle or rule which commends that a party should first confirm the status of security deposited in court before commencing appeal proceedings in this Court.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
the delay in filing the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal is inordinate and inexcusable, and that the reasons advanced thereof are not plausible in the circumstances.
In the end, the Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states the date of the ruling sought to be appealed: the Notice of Motion seeks to appeal a Ruling delivered on 19th October 2023, but the grounds and analysis refer to a decision delivered on 11th July 2024 in the same matter (Mombasa HC Misc. Civil Application No. 75 of 2020).
The respondent's deponent, Shishir Suryakant Gor, is described as counsel in conduct of the matter on behalf of the respondent, but the respondent's actual name/identity as a party is not separately stated in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oceanview Plaza Limited v C.B. Gor & Gor (Civil Application E077 of 2025) [2026] KECA 41 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E098 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/41/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.