Othiambo v Obuor (Civil Application E153 of 2025) [2026] KECA 191 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal adjourned a man's late-appeal application because he never served it on the other side, proving service matters before any hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to appeal out of time from the High Court ruling of 30th April, 2025 in Succession Cause No. 80 of 1986
- 2.Whether the application was properly served on the respondent as directed by the Deputy Registrar
Key legal issues
#Effect of failure to serve an application on the respondent
The court declined to hear the application on the merits and adjourned it pending compliance with service directions
The applicant, acting in person, was directed by the Deputy Registrar to serve the application on the respondent. No affidavit of service or proof of service was placed on record. In the absence of service, the court would not entertain the application, and adjourned it to a future date to allow compliance. The merits of the extension-of-time application were not considered.
Legal principles established
#- An application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules must be served on the affected party as directed by the Deputy Registrar, and an unserved application cannot be heard
Court orders
#- 1.Application adjourned to another date to allow the applicant to comply with the Deputy Registrar's directions on service
- 2.No extension of time granted at this stage
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Succession Cause No. 80 of 1986
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to appeal out of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to appeal out of time (deferred, not finally refused)
The application was not served on the respondent and no affidavit of service was on record
Costs
No costs order made
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.
There is no evidence or proof that the respondent was served. There is no afidavit of service on record.
In the circumstances therefore, since the application was not served, it is hereby adjourned to another date when the applicant will have complied with the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar of the court.
Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is a very short ruling adjourning the application; the respondent is not named and the appeal/case number of the application itself is not stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Othiambo v Obuor (Civil Application E153 of 2025) [2026] KECA 191 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/191/eng@2026-02-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.