Corner Place Investment Limited v Kirima & 3 others (Civil Application E214 of 2025) [2026] KECA 98 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal clarified that the 60-day appeal clock starts when certified proceedings are supplied, not when the delay certificate is issued.
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 Court should grant the firm of SOW Advocates LLP leave to come on record for the applicant
- 2.Whether time for lodging the appeal had already lapsed when the application dated 7th February 2025 was filed, and whether the Court has jurisdiction to extend time
- 3.When the clock begins to run for lodging an appeal where a certificate of delay is issued after certified proceedings have been supplied
Key legal issues
#Commencement of the 60-day period for lodging an appeal where a certificate of delay is issued
Time begins to run on the date certified copies of proceedings are supplied, not the date the certificate of delay is issued
The proviso to Rule 84 excludes the time certified by the Registrar as required for preparation and delivery of certified copies. The certificate here covered 495 days (14th July 2023 to 20th November 2024). Time therefore began to run on 21st November 2024, not 5th February 2025 when the certificate issued. After excluding the Christmas Recess, the 60 days expired on or about 13th February 2025.
Whether a prematurely filed extension application, accompanied by a record of appeal filed before expiry of time, should be excused
The applicant's misapprehension of the law and miscalculation of time was excused in the interest of justice, since the record would have been filed in time and the respondent would suffer no prejudice
The record of appeal was filed alongside the application and would have been within time but for the applicant's miscalculation. The court excused the error because the 1st respondent would not suffer prejudice, and permitted the record to be properly lodged within 14 days, while striking out the defective motion.
Legal principles established
#- In computing the time for lodging an appeal, the period certified by the Registrar as required for preparation and delivery of certified copies of proceedings and judgment is excluded; time runs from the date certified proceedings are supplied, not from the date the certificate of delay is issued
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of motion dated 7th February 2025 struck out with costs to the 1st respondent
- 2.Change of advocates to SOW Advocates LLP allowed
- 3.Applicant to properly lodge and serve the record of appeal within 14 days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Not identified in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Prayer to extend time for filing the appeal out of time (as framed in the application)
The application was premature; time had not lapsed when it was filed, as the 60-day period ran from 21st November 2024 (date of receipt of certified proceedings) not from the date of the certificate of delay, and expired on or about 13th February 2025
Costs
Costs of the application to the 1st 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.
In computing the time within which the appeal is to be instituted, the time certified by the Registrar of the superior court as having been required for preparation and delivery of the certified copies of proceedings and judgment shall be excluded.
Clearly time would start to run on 21st November 2024 and not 5th February 2025 when the certificate of delay was issued.
Ultimately, while I strike out the notice of motion dated 7th February 2025 with costs to the 1st respondent, I allow the change of advocates and make a further order that the applicant shall properly lodge and serve the record of appeal within 14 days hereof.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent deponed that the application was filed on 7th February 2025, and the court describes it as premature; yet the respondent also computed expiry as 7th April 2025 from the certificate date, while the court computed expiry as 13th February 2025 - the court's own chronology (proceedings issued 20th November 2024) is what the judgment adopts
The applicant is described as 'applicant/appellant' but no appeal was yet on record; the court nonetheless directs lodgment of a record of appeal within 14 days despite having struck out the extension application as premature
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Corner Place Investment Limited v Kirima & 3 others (Civil Application E214 of 2025) [2026] KECA 98 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/98/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.