University of Nairobi v Ricatti Business College of East Africa (Civil Appeal (Application) E566 of 2021) [2026] KECA 418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a three-year delay in filing, warning that time limits in litigation are not optional and cases must end.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court should extend time to permit the filing of a reference out of time
Key legal issues
#Length of delay
A delay exceeding three years is substantial and requires a correspondingly weighty explanation
The impugned ruling was delivered on 28th April 2022 and the application filed on 6th November 2025, a delay exceeding three years. The court treated such magnitude as requiring a weighty explanation, citing Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd for the proposition that a satisfactory explanation is the cornerstone of the discretion.
Explanation for the delay
A pattern of repeated procedural misdirection, rather than a single lapse, does not amount to a satisfactory explanation
The proper course after the April 2022 ruling was a timeous reference; instead a rescission application was filed and dismissed, a reference was filed two years later out of time and withdrawn, and only then was this motion filed. Blaming the court's directions was rejected as disingenuous.
Arguability of the intended reference
Arguability is a secondary factor and cannot compensate for prolonged unexplained delay
The court held that arguability means only that the matter is not frivolous, not probable success, and that even assuming arguability, the factor cannot offset inordinate, insufficiently explained delay.
Prejudice and finality
Presumptive prejudice grows with the age of the matter; litigation must attain finality
The decree dated back to 2019. The court held that finality is a central value of adjudication and that the longer a matter remains unresolved, the greater the presumptive prejudice to the respondent.
Errors of counsel
A litigant cannot hide indefinitely behind counsel's mistakes and must demonstrate personal diligence
While acknowledging the principle that litigants should not invariably be punished for their advocates' errors, the court held its application depends on context, citing Habo Agencies, and that discretion cannot normalize a pattern of procedural misdirection.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is a discretionary, equitable indulgence, not a right, and where delay is substantial a correspondingly weighty explanation is required
- Judicial clarification of procedure cannot be equated with judicial responsibility for a litigant's delay
- The discretion under Rule 4 is wide but must be exercised judicially and in a manner upholding the orderly administration of justice
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (single Judge, Murgor, JA)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve a reference out of time from the ruling of 28th April, 2022
Inordinate delay exceeding three years without satisfactory explanation, and prejudice to the respondent
Costs
The application dated 6th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
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.
The application dated 6th November, 2025 is, therefore, dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
To grant extension here would risk conveying the impression that time limits in appellate litigation are elastic and that compliance with the Rules is optional.
In the result, the Applicant has not placed before the Court a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay.
Finality is not a technical aspiration; it is a central value of adjudication.
Discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially, not indulgently, and it cannot be invoked to normalize a pattern of procedural misdirection.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant and respondent are not named in the judgment extract; only 'the Applicant' and 'the Respondent' appear, and the case number is absent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "University of Nairobi v Ricatti Business College of East Africa (Civil Appeal (Application) E566 of 2021) [2026] KECA 418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/418/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.