Mbarire v Kenya Airways Limited (Civil Application E383 of 2025) [2026] KECA 104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal after a 13-month delay, holding that certified court proceedings are not needed to file a Memorandum of Appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Reason for the delay
No good reason was shown; the delay of over thirteen months could not be attributed to the court's failure to supply certified proceedings, which were unnecessary for filing a Memorandum of Appeal.
The judgment was delivered on 4th March 2024 and the application was dated 27th June 2025, a delay of over thirteen months. The applicant blamed the court's failure to supply certified proceedings, but the court held that certified proceedings were not needed to lodge a Memorandum of Appeal, and noted that the respondent had lodged its own Notice of Appeal, requested proceedings the same day and filed its appeal within about a month, demonstrating the excuse was untenable. The applicant was also vague on when the request for proceedings was dispatched.
Prejudice to the respondent
Revival of the applicant's claim at that point would prejudice the respondent by protracting litigation and costs where closure was reasonably anticipated.
The respondent had acted with alacrity, lodging its Notice of Appeal on 6th March 2024, requesting proceedings the same day, securing a certificate by 20th March 2024, and lodging its appeal (Civil Appeal No. E271 of 2024) by 12th April 2024. Granting the extension would disrupt this trajectory of anticipated closure and prolong the litigation and associated costs.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The grounds that the learned Judge disregarded the evidence, the law and regulations on compensation, and misapprehended the facts and law were not idle grounds, satisfying the 'possibly arguable' threshold, but this alone did not warrant the extension.
The court reiterated that whether an intended appeal has merits is not determined with finality by a single judge; the test is whether the appeal is 'possibly' arguable. The applicant's pleaded grounds were found not to be idle, but because the delay was unexplained and inordinate and prejudice was shown, the arguability of the appeal could not rescue the application.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is not a right but an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the Court's satisfaction.
- A party cannot blame the court for delay in filing a Memorandum of Appeal where a certified copy of proceedings is not required to lodge the Memorandum of Appeal.
- On an application for extension of time, a single judge determines only whether the intended appeal is possibly arguable, not whether it will succeed.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27th June, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 and Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (single judge, extension of time discretion)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbarire v Kenya Airways Limited (Civil Application E383 of 2025) [2026] KECA 104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion application dated 27th June, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/104/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.