Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 22nd January 2026· [2026] KECA 431 (KLR)

Ken-mart Supermarket Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers

Court of Appeal
6 March 2026
743 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a 44-day late appeal because the delay was explained, but refused to halt the judgment's enforcement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge application ruling of the Court of Appeal at Eldoret, delivered by M. Gachoka, JA, on 6th March 2026. The applicant, through its director Uday Khetiya, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2026 seeking an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time against the judgment of Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango delivered on 21st November 2025 in ELRCC/E006/2025, together with a stay of execution. The respondent, through its general secretary Andrew K. M'mukiri, opposed the application, contending that the 44-day delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that the application was intended to deny it the fruits of its judgment. The court limited itself to prayer 2, noting that as constituted it could only determine the extension-of-time prayer. Applying the settled Rule 4 principles drawn from Fahir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi and earlier authorities, the court found the delay not inordinate and satisfactorily explained by administrative reasons, including late receipt of the judgment and a change of advocates. It directed the applicant to file the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal within 14 days, with costs of the application abiding the outcome of the appeal. The stay of execution prayer was not determined for want of jurisdiction in this single-judge formation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of 44 days in filing the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal should be excused under Rule 4

Holding

The delay was found not inordinate and to have been explained, justifying the exercise of discretion to extend time

Reasoning

The court applied the settled Rule 4 principles from Fahir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi, weighing the period and reason for delay, the prospects of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondent. It accepted the applicant's explanation that the delay was administrative, as it did not receive the judgment in good time, and that it had changed advocates. Finding the delay not inordinate and sufficiently explained, the court exercised its unfettered discretion in the applicant's favour and allowed the extension.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In a Rule 4 extension-of-time application, the court considers relevant but not exhaustive factors including the period and reason for delay, chances of appeal success, prejudice to the respondent, and importance of compliance with time limits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant to file its notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal within the next 14 days from the date of the order
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
ELRCC/E006/2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ken-mart Supermarket Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/431/eng@2026-03-06

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