Kenmot Spares Limited v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Civil Application E668 of 2025) [2026] KECA 440 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let a company appeal late because its former lawyer failed to tell it about the ruling in time.
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 leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal out of time against the ruling of 3rd October 2025
- 2.Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay of approximately 25-27 days constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time
- 3.Whether the applicant should be granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from selling or disposing of the charged property pending the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether a former advocate's failure to communicate delivery of a ruling constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time to file a notice of appeal
Yes. An unrebutted assertion that the former advocate failed to promptly communicate the ruling is an honest mistake for which the innocent litigant should not suffer; leave to appeal out of time was granted despite the delay of about 27 days.
The court found the applicant's explanation unrebutted: there was no material suggesting the applicant failed to follow up with the former advocates or lacked diligence. Adopting the broad equity approach in Chemwolo v Kubende, the court held that blunders do not warrant depriving a party of a determination on the merits absent fraud or intention to overreach, and that the relatively short delay could be remedied by costs.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant should not be deprived of the right to have a case determined on its merits merely because of a mistake, where the mistake is honest and can be remedied by costs; a mistake by a former advocate should not be visited upon the innocent client.
- Unless there is fraud or intention to overreach, no error or default is incapable of being put right by payment of costs; the court exists to decide the rights of the parties, not to impose discipline.
- A party should not be prevented from exercising the right to appeal unless good reason is shown against extension.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave is granted to the applicant to file and serve a Notice of Appeal
- 2.The draft Notice of Appeal as annexed is deemed as duly filed and served upon payment of requisite fees
- 3.The costs of the application to abide in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial and Tax Division)
- HCCOMM/E339/2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Section 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the respondent from selling, auctioning, transferring or disposing of LR. No. 209/136/182, Kirinyaga Road, Nairobi pending determination of the application
The prayer became unnecessary because the leave application itself had been determined and allowed, rendering the interlocutory protection redundant
Costs
The costs of the application to abide in the intended appeal.
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.
Leave is hereby granted to the applicant to file and serve a Notice of Appeal.
The draft Notice of Appeal as annexed is hereby deemed as duly filed and served upon payment of requisite fees.
Blunders will continue to be made from time to time and it does not follow that because a mistake has been made that a party should suffer the penalty of not having his case determined on its merits.
unless there is fraud or intention to overreach, there is no error or default that cannot be put right by payment of costs
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the length of delay: the affidavit/recitals describe the delay as approximately 25 days while the court's reasoning twice refers to 27 days
The decision is delivered by a single Judge of Appeal as a chamber matter, though styled as a decision of the Court of Appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenmot Spares Limited v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Civil Application E668 of 2025) [2026] KECA 440 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Application - Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025 (arising from HCCOMM/E339/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/440/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.