Maritim v Koech (Civil Application E130 of 2025) [2026] KECA 566 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a 31-day late appeal, showing courts may excuse short, unexplained delays where the appellant is genuinely ready to be heard.
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 extension of time to lodge and serve the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay in filing the appeal is inordinate and satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the interests of justice favour granting the indulgence
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the notice and memorandum of appeal was inordinate and justified
The 31-day delay, though not properly accounted for, was not inordinate, and the memorandum of appeal being ready signalled a genuine desire to be heard.
The Court applied the Salat guidelines and the principle that a plausible explanation triggers the discretion. Although the applicant's explanation for the delay was incomplete, the Court found the period of 31 days not inordinate. Weighing the applicant's preparedness (a ready memorandum of appeal) against any prejudice to the respondents, the Court held the interests of justice favoured opening the doors of justice to the applicant and granted the extension.
The applicable principles for extension of time under Rule 4
Extension of time is governed by the 'interests of justice' standard under Rule 4, applying the Salat considerations including reasons for delay, prejudice, and whether the application was brought without undue delay.
The Court restated the seven-pronged Salat test: extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy; the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis; the discretion is exercised case by case; the delay must be reasonably explained; prejudice to the respondent is considered; the application must be brought without undue delay; and public interest may arise in cases like election petitions. The Rule 4 threshold is 'on such terms as may be just', i.e. the interests of justice.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court, and a plausible and comprehensive explanation covering the entire period of delay is a crucial factor triggering the discretion.
- Where no reasonable explanation for the delay exists, the indulgence will generally not be granted even if the appeal has prospects of success.
- Once a plausible explanation is found, the Court may then consider other factors such as prospects of success in exercising its discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant is allowed to file a notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal out of time
- 2.The notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal be filed and served within 7 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Kilgoris (Environment and Land Court / trial court)
- Kilgoris ELC No. E019 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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.
Decided cases are in agreement that a plausible, reasonable, and comprehensive explanation for the delay is a crucial, though not sole, factor that triggers the Court's discretion to grant extension of time.
I must underscore that condonation for delay is not a right, and that "hard-earned judgments" should not be lightly disturbed or enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment delayed.
In my view, the interests of justice tilt in favour of opening the doors of justice to the applicant. Accordingly, I allow the plea to file a notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal out of time.
I direct that the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal be filed and served within 7 days from today. I make no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the length of delay: the applicant's submissions state the delay is 312 days while the Court characterises it as 31 days.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maritim v Koech (Civil Application E130 of 2025) [2026] KECA 566 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/566/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.