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

Kenya County Government of Workers Union v County Government of Vihiga & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E048 of 2026) [2026] KECA 489 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
10 March 2026
LKL. Kimaru
417 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 excused a one-day late appeal filing, deeming the record properly filed because the delay was caused by the court registry itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an unopposed application before the Court of Appeal at Kisumu, decided by L. Kimaru, JA, under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time. The applicant was aggrieved by a ruling of the trial court delivered on 26th September 2025 and filed a notice of appeal on 7th October 2025. Under Rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the record of appeal was due within sixty days. It was lodged on 8th December 2025, one day late. The applicant attributed the delay to the Deputy Registrar of the Superior Court failing to issue the certificate of delay in time and asked the Court to regularise and deem the filing as proper. The respondents were served and filed no response, leaving the application unopposed. The Court held that its discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered, found the one-day delay neither inordinate nor prejudicial, and allowed the application. The record of appeal filed on 8th December 2025 was deemed properly filed and within time, and was to be served on the respondents within seven days. There were no orders as to costs. The decision below was not disturbed; this ruling concerns only the regularisation of the appellate record and the appeal itself remains pending.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
  2. 2.Whether the one-day delay in lodging the record of appeal was inordinate and whether it was excusable
  3. 3.Whether the respondents would suffer any prejudice if the extension were granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time under Rule 4

Holding

The Court exercised its unfettered discretion under Rule 4 in favour of the applicant: the one-day delay was not inordinate, was excusable because it arose from the Deputy Registrar's delay in issuing the certificate of delay, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

Reasoning

The applicant was required by Rule 84(1) to file the record within sixty days of the notice of appeal lodged on 7th October 2025. The record was lodged on 8th December 2025, one day late. The delay was attributed to the Deputy Registrar's failure to issue the certificate of delay in time. The application was unopposed, the delay was minimal, and no prejudice was demonstrated, so the discretion was exercised to regularise the filing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court has unfettered discretion to grant or refuse an application for extension of time to take any step required within a prescribed time, and a short delay of one day attributable to a registrar's delay in issuing a certificate of delay is not inordinate and causes no prejudice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed
  2. 2.The record of appeal filed in Court on 8th December, 2025 is deemed to have been properly filed and within time
  3. 3.The record of appeal shall be served upon the respondents within seven (7) days of the date of the ruling
  4. 4.There shall be no orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

LK
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Trial Court (Superior Court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent/flexibility jurisdiction to extend time)

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.

Under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, this Court has unfettered discretion to grant or refuse an application such as the present one seeking extension of time to take any steps that is required to be taken within a prescribed time.
p. 2Discretion under Rule 4
The delay of one (1) day is not inordinate. It is excusable. The respondents will sufier no prejudice.
p. 2Assessment of delay and prejudice
The record of appeal filed in Court on 8th December, 2025 is hereby deemed to have been properly filed and within time.
p. 2Final orders - deeming provision

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The names of the parties and the appeal number are not stated in the judgment; only the applicant's deponent, Roba Shani Duba, is named.

minor

The judgment contains a typographical error ('sufier' for 'suffer') in the passage on prejudice.

minor

The judgment dates the delivery as 10th March 2026 while the record of appeal was lodged on 8th December 2025; the reference to 'today's date' in the service order is consistent with the delivery date but the text runs 'of today's date. there shall be no orders as to costs' with irregular punctuation and capitalisation.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government of Workers Union v County Government of Vihiga & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E048 of 2026) [2026] KECA 489 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/489/eng@2026-03-10

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