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 AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KECA 201 (KLR)

Chemical Partners Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Boarder Control . Respondent

Court of Appeal of Kenya
6 February 2026
WKW. Karanja
497 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a one-day late appeal filing because counsel simply forgot to pay fees, ruling the delay harmless.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by W. Karanja, JA, delivered on 6th February 2026, on a notice of motion dated 29th May 2025 seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the judgment of Judge Alexander Muasya Muteti delivered on 12th May 2025. Counsel for the applicant, Liz Gitau, deposed that the notice of appeal was lodged through the electronic filing system on 16th May 2025, but she forgot to pay the filing fees on time, doing so only on 27th May 2025. Under the Rules of the Court, the date of filing is the date payment is made, so the notice of appeal was out of time by about one day. The application, supported by 22 grounds and counsel's affidavit, was served on the respondent, which filed neither a replying affidavit nor submissions in opposition. The Court restated the settled guidelines from Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others [2014] eKLR: extension of time is a judicial discretion, and the court considers whether the delay is inordinate, whether the explanation is plausible, and whether the respondent would suffer prejudice. Finding the one-day delay negligible, the explanation plausible, and no prejudice to the respondent, the Court allowed the application, deemed the notice of appeal dated 16th May 2025 as duly filed and served, and made no order as to costs since the application was unopposed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a one-day delay in filing a notice of appeal, caused by counsel's late payment of filing fees, warranted extension of time

Holding

Yes; the delay was negligible, the explanation plausible, and the respondent suffered no prejudice

Reasoning

The Court applied the settled Salat guidelines. Under the Court's Rules, the date of filing is the date payment is made; counsel forgot to pay the filing fees on time, paying only on 27th May 2025, making the notice of appeal one day late. The delay was minimal, the reasons plausible, and the respondent, having been served with the notice of appeal and a letter bespeaking proceedings and filing no response, would not be prejudiced.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is a judicial discretion exercised per the Salat guidelines: delay must not be inordinate, the explanation must be plausible, and the respondent must not suffer prejudice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file the notice of appeal
  2. 2.The Notice of Appeal dated 16th May 2025 deemed as duly filed and served
  3. 3.No order as to costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal under its Rules to extend time for filing a notice of appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chemical Partners Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Boarder Control . Respondent", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/201/eng@2026-02-06

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