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 AppealPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 (Civil Application)

Sirgoi Holdings Limited & another v Sitienei (Civil Application E188 of 2025) [2026] KECA 160 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
30 January 2026
HOH. A. Omondi
1,484 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 a single judge cannot grant a stay of execution, but gave the appellants extra time to file their appeal record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu delivered by a single Judge, H.A. Omondi, JA, on 30th January 2026, in a Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 by Sirgoi Holdings Limited and its Board of Directors. The applicants, who lost in ELRC Cause No. 26 of 2019 before Baari, J on 5th October 2023, sought extension of time to file and serve the Record of Appeal and stay of execution of the decree. The respondent, Hosea Sitienei, opposed, arguing inexcusable delay of over one year and eight months, indolence following the striking out of an earlier application on 11th July 2025, and that the omnibus application was incurably defective since no appeal had been filed and served. The court held that the stay of execution prayer fell outside the jurisdiction of a single Judge, being reserved to the full bench under rule 55 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, and declined to decide it, leaving the applicants liberty to list it before the full bench. On extension of time, applying Rule 4 and the factors in Paul Wanjohi Mathane v Duncan Gichare Mathenge, the court found the Notice of Appeal was filed within time on 9th October 2023, that certified proceedings were only emailed on 7th November 2024, and that counsel's intermittent unavailability while caring for a terminally ill parent, undisputed by the respondent, excused the delay. The applicants were found vigilant and diligent. Time was extended for fourteen days to lodge and serve the record, with costs in the cause. The application therefore partially succeeded: extension of time granted; stay not determined for want of single-Judge jurisdiction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of a single Judge to grant stay of execution

Holding

A single Judge has no jurisdiction to determine an application for stay of execution; such a prayer must go before the full bench, so the court declined to render any decision on it

Reasoning

Rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 provides that applications shall be heard by a single Judge, but sub-rule (2) excludes applications for stay of execution, injunctions or stay of further proceedings. Because the applicants had joined a stay prayer in an omnibus application before a single Judge, the court could not entertain that portion, while leaving the applicant free to list it before the full bench.

p. 3
02

Extension of time to lodge and serve the Record of Appeal

Holding

Extension of time granted; the applicants filed a valid Notice of Appeal within time, the delay in obtaining certified proceedings was not attributable to them, and counsel's caregiving duties explained the lapse

Reasoning

Applying Rule 4 and the factors in Paul Wanjohi Mathane v Duncan Gichare Mathenge (period of delay, reasons, prejudice, public importance), the court found the Notice of Appeal was filed on 9th October 2023 within time; certified proceedings were only emailed on 7th November 2024; counsel was intermittently unavailable caring for a terminally ill parent, a fact not disputed; and a memorandum of appeal was prepared by May 2024. The applicants were therefore vigilant and diligent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution pending appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 cannot be heard by a single Judge but only by the full bench of the Court
  • The discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend time is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, guided by the period of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayer for stay of execution was not determined for want of jurisdiction of a single Judge; the applicant is at liberty to list that prayer before the full bench
  2. 2.Extension of time granted to lodge and serve the notice of appeal/Record of Appeal within fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
ELRC Cause No. 26 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (single Judge exercise of discretion to extend time); Articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked by applicants

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sirgoi Holdings Limited & another v Sitienei (Civil Application E188 of 2025) [2026] KECA 160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/160/eng@2026-01-30

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