Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Application E226 of 2025

Mwazighe v Attorney General (Civil Application E226 of 2025) [2026] KECA 114 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
30 January 2026
FTF Tuiyott
202 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal postponed deciding Mwazighe's request to appeal out of time because neither side filed the required written submissions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief procedural order of the Court of Appeal (Tuiyott, JA) sitting at Nairobi, arising from a single application (Civil Application E226 of 2025) by Hartwell JM Mwazighe for leave to file an appeal out of time against a High Court judgment of Sergon, J delivered on 24 November 2021 in H.C.C.C. No. 3008 of 1989, in which the respondent is the Hon Attorney General. The court had directed that the notice of motion dated 10 February 2025 be disposed of by written submissions, but neither the applicant nor the respondent filed any. Observing that there was no way of knowing whether the applicant remained interested in prosecuting the motion, the single judge declined to determine the extension-of-time application on the papers and instead made a case-management direction: the matter was taken out of the day's list and ordered relisted for hearing afresh, with the parties to be served with a hearing notice and a copy of the order. No substantive rights were determined, no costs order was made, and no decision of the lower court was disturbed. The order is therefore of no precedential value and sets no binding proposition for lower courts. It simply preserves the status quo pending a fresh hearing of the application on a future date.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the notice of motion dated 10th February 2025 seeking leave to appeal out of time should proceed, given that neither party filed written submissions as directed

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The matter be taken out from the day's list
    2. 2.The matter be relisted for hearing afresh
    3. 3.Parties to be served with a hearing notice and a copy of the order

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    FT
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
    H.C.C.C. No. 3008 of 1989
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Application for leave to file an appeal out of time under the Court of Appeal's extension-of-time jurisdiction

    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 sensible order to make, which I now do, is to direct that the matter be taken out from today’s list and be relisted for hearing afresh.
    p. 1Case management direction where no submissions filed

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Mwazighe v Attorney General (Civil Application E226 of 2025) [2026] KECA 114 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E226 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/114/eng@2026-01-30

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.