Erdemann Property Limited v Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees (Civil Application E669 of 2025) [2026] KECA 458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to revive Erdemann Property's late appeal because its notice of appeal had been struck out and the 143-day delay went unexplained.
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's notice of appeal having been struck out, an extension of time to file an appeal can still be granted
- 2.Whether the applicant gave a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay of 143 days in filing the application
- 3.Whether the resignation of the applicant's former counsel is a valid reason to excuse the delay
Key legal issues
#Effect of a struck-out notice of appeal on an extension of time application
The application was incompetent because the notice of appeal had been struck out, so the Court could not act in vacuo to grant extension of time to file the main appeal
The Court noted it was not disputed that the notice of appeal filed on 04.07.2025 had been struck out by an Order given on 27.01.2026 in Civil Application No. E526 of 2025 at the respondent's instance. With no surviving notice of appeal, the intended appeal had no foundation, and extension of time could not breathe life into it.
Explanation for the delay
The delay of 143 days between the impugned Ruling (24.06.2025) and the application (14.11.2025) was not reasonably explained
The application was filed 143 days after the Ruling, and the letter requesting certified proceedings was filed some four months after the Ruling. The alleged resignation of counsel James Githui on 30.09.2025 was remote in time from the delay and unsupported by evidence; no affidavit from that counsel was filed. Accordingly the applicant failed the explanation limb of the extension-of-time test.
Legal principles established
#- Where the notice of appeal has been struck out, the Court cannot grant an extension of time to file the main appeal because the application stands on no foundation
- An applicant for extension of time must show a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay; counsel's resignation remote in time from the delay does not suffice
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th November 2025 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Machakos
- Civil Suit No. 9 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50(1) of the Constitution, Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap. 9 and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an appeal against the Ruling and Orders of 24th June 2025
The notice of appeal had been struck out by the Court on 27th January 2026 in Civil Application No. E526 of 2025, leaving the intended appeal on no foundation, and the delay of 143 days was not reasonably explained
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the respondent ('the application dated 14.11. 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs for 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.
It is not disputed that the applicant’s notice of appeal filed on 04.07.2025 was struck out by the Order of the Court given on 27.01.2026 in Civil Application No. E526 of 2025.
The respondent has as well established that the alleged resignation of counsel is remote in time and therefore not a valid reason to explain the delay in issue.
In conclusion, the application dated 14.11. 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs for the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the hearing notice was dated 12.02.2020, which is inconsistent with the 2026 chronology of the matter and appears to be a typographical error for 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Erdemann Property Limited v Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees (Civil Application E669 of 2025) [2026] KECA 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application (Rule 4) filed 14th November 2025, Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/458/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.