Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNotice of Motion dated 30th June, 2025 (Court of Appeal)· [2026] KECA 118 (KLR)

Kamajugo v Trademark East Africa Ltd (Civil Application E385 of 2025) [2026] KECA 118 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
30 January 2026
1,609 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that time covered by a certificate of delay doesn't count toward the 60-day appeal deadline, so Kamajugo's late-filed appeal was allowed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application under rules 4, 75 and 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 by Richard Kamajugo seeking extension of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal against the judgment of Ndolo J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 19th December 2024, and deeming of the record lodged out of time. The applicant blamed the delay on the late supply of certified proceedings, unsuccessful e-filing attempts, and reliance on the certificate of delay issued on 10th June 2025. The respondent, through a replying affidavit sworn by Leyla Ahmed, alleged a pattern of indolence and procedural neglect, noting the proceedings were ready on 30th April 2025 but collected only on 7th May 2025. The court, Achode JA, set out the unfettered discretion under rule 4 and the Fakir Mohamed factors, but focused on computation of time under rule 84(1), which excludes time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of proceedings. Since the certificate of delay issued on 10th June 2025, the applicant was still within the 60-day window when the motion was filed on 30th June 2025, so there was in law no delay. The court declined to examine arguability, excusability or prejudice. The application was allowed: the memorandum and record of appeal were deemed properly filed, service on the respondent was ordered within seven days, and costs were awarded to the respondent, borne by the appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the period covered by the certificate of delay is excluded in computing the time for instituting an appeal under rule 84(1)

Holding

Yes. Applying rule 84(1), the time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of the copy of proceedings is excluded; since the certificate of delay issued on 10th June 2025, the applicant was still within the 60-day window when the motion was filed on 30th June 2025.

Reasoning

The court set out rule 84(1), which excludes from computation such time as the registrar certifies as required for preparation and delivery of the copy to the appellant. On the facts, proceedings were ready 30th April 2025, collected 7th May 2025, and the certificate issued 10th June 2025. It followed mechanically that no delay existed, and the court declined to consider arguability, excusability or prejudice.

p. 3
02

The scope of the discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Holding

The discretion under rule 4 is unfettered and is guided by relevant but not exhaustive factors including period and reason for delay, chances of success, prejudice, effect on public administration, importance of compliance with time limits, resources of parties and public importance.

Reasoning

The court quoted rule 4 and adopted Fakir Mohamed vs Joseph Mugambi, holding there is no limit to the number of relevant factors. However, having found no delay existed in the first place, the court found it unnecessary to venture into the other extension-of-time factors.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a certificate of delay has been issued, the time certified as required for preparation and delivery of proceedings is excluded in computing the 60-day period for instituting an appeal, and a litigant within that extended period cannot be said to be out of time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The memorandum of appeal and record of appeal already lodged be and are hereby deemed to be properly filed
  2. 2.The memorandum of appeal and record of appeal be served upon the respondent within seven days of this ruling
  3. 3.The appellants shall bear the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 75
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 82
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 84(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 118

Cases cited (7)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Salat vs IEBC and 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Paul Wandati Mbochi vs Stephen Kimotho Karanja
    [2020] eKLR, Civil Appeal No. E011 of 2020
  • Maina v Kamweti
    (Civil Application No.12 of 2019) [2022] KECA 390 (KLR)
  • Njuguna v Magichu
    [2003] KECA 162 (KLR)
  • Abuya Adoyo
    (Civil Application E001 of 2021) [2022] KECA 482 (KLR)
  • Fakir Mohamed vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 others
    [2005] eKLR
  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 4, 75 and 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamajugo v Trademark East Africa Ltd (Civil Application E385 of 2025) [2026] KECA 118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 30th June, 2025 (Court of Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/118/eng@2026-01-30

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