Oyieke v Kenya National Trading Corporation Ltd (Civil Application E172 of 2025) [2026] KECA 90 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that lacking money to pay a lawyer is a valid reason to appeal late.
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 given a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay is inordinate such that it disentitles the applicant to the exercise of the court's discretion
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and has chances of success
- 4.Whether the respondent will be prejudiced by the grant of the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether financial constraints constitute a satisfactory explanation for a 21-day delay in lodging an appeal
Yes. The court found the applicant's explanation of financial constraints preventing payment of legal fees genuine and reasonable; the delay of twenty-one days (excluding the fourteen days under rule 77(2)) was not inordinate.
The court evaluated the applicant's sworn explanation that he lacked funds to pay counsel's fees to file the appeal in time. Although the respondent doubted its genuineness, the court was satisfied on the facts that the explanation was reasonable and that a 21-day delay, measured after deducting the 14-day period under rule 77(2), was not inordinate and would not prejudice the respondent.
Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the extension of time
No. Any prejudice capable of being suffered is adequately compensated by an award of costs, which the court in fact awarded to the respondent.
The court reasoned that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the applicant exercising his right of appeal, and that any residual prejudice would be met through costs. This reflects the principle that in interlocutory extension applications, costs are the ordinary answer to the other side's inconvenience rather than a ground of refusal.
Legal principles established
#- An application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is governed by established principles: satisfactory explanation for the delay, whether the delay is inordinate, arguability of the intended appeal, and absence of prejudice to the respondent.
- Financial constraints preventing an applicant from instructing counsel in time can constitute a reasonable explanation for delay, and any prejudice to a respondent is compensable by an award of costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve the notice of appeal within seven (7) days of today's date
- 3.The applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal within forty-five (45) days of service of the notice of appeal
- 4.The respondent shall have the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to file notice of appeal and record of 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 exercise of this discretion is not on whim or caprice but is bound by long established principles which include whether the applicant has given satisfactory explanation for the delay; if the delay is inordinate that it disentitles the applicant to the exercise of discretion by the court; whether, if granted, the appeal is arguable and has chances of success and finally, whether the respondent will be prejudiced by the grant of the orders sought by the applicant
upon evaluation of the facts of this application, this court is convinced that the applicant gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal in time. The period of delay is not in ordinate.
In the premises therefore, the application has merit and is hereby allowed. The applicant shall file and serve the notice of appeal within seven (7) days of today’s date. He shall file and serve the record of appeal within forty-five (45) days of service of the notice of appeal.
The respondent shall have the costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment text ('sufier' for 'suffer'; 'not in ordinate' for 'not inordinate'), which do not affect the substance.
The judgment does not state the case number of the ELRC decision appealed from, the parties' full case citation, or a neutral citation, limiting identification of the decision under review.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyieke v Kenya National Trading Corporation Ltd (Civil Application E172 of 2025) [2026] KECA 90 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Civil Application - rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/90/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.