Clifford Otwere Livoi v Sunpar Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a worker seven extra days to file his appeal record, ruling a short, well-explained delay with an arguable appeal deserves forgiveness.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the seven-day delay was inordinate and excusable
The short delay was explained by the Certificate of Delay showing the proceedings were ready for collection on 23rd July 2025 and the application was filed on 30th July 2025.
The court examined the Certificate of Delay dated 23rd July 2025, which showed that the certified proceedings were ready for collection on that date. The application was lodged on 30th July 2025, a mere seven days later. The applicant attributed the delay to the delayed supply of proceedings and decree, which the certificate corroborated. A seven-day delay is short and, being documented, was not treated as inordinate.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The court was satisfied the intended appeal is arguable, without going into the merits, on the ground that the ELRC allegedly failed to consider the applicant's evidence that he was coerced to resign before termination.
Applying the settled principles, the court needed only a single arguable ground, not proof the appeal would succeed. The applicant raised the question whether the ELRC erred in failing to take into account his evidence that he was coerced to resign before termination. The court expressly declined to go into the merits, leaving those to the full bench, and found the ground sufficient to satisfy the arguability threshold.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
The court balanced the injustice to the applicant of denying the extension against any prejudice to the respondent and found no sufficient prejudice; the unopposed application was allowed.
The respondent, though served, filed neither a replying affidavit nor written submissions, so no concrete prejudice was demonstrated. The court invoked the balancing exercise between the injustice to the aggrieved applicant in denying him his day on appeal and the prejudice to the respondent in granting the extension, citing Richard Nchapi Leiyagu v IEBC. On that balance the application merited allowance.
Legal principles established
#- The exercise of the Court of Appeal's discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered and guided by relevant factors including period of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
- In an extension-of-time application the court must balance the injustice to the applicant in denying an extension against the prejudice to the respondent in granting it.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5, 44 and 88 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time to file and serve a record of appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Clifford Otwere Livoi v Sunpar Pharmaceuticals Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/146/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.