Kadima t/a Kadima & Company Advocates v Kedong Ranch Limited (Civil Application E231 of 2025) [2026] KECA 568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to forgive a year-long filing delay because the applicant's explanation was weak, even though the appeal itself might have had merit.
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 letters requesting typed proceedings dated 24th April 2024, 19th February 2025, 29th April 2025 and 30th October 2025 should be deemed served out of time
- 2.Whether the record of appeal filed on 17th December 2025 should be deemed duly filed and served
- 3.Whether the applicant has given a plausible explanation for the delay warranting extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay was plausible and satisfactory under the Salat criteria
The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory: the letters sought to be validated came over a year after the judgment and the applicant only moved upon the respondent's striking-out application
The Court applied the Salat guidelines and the requirement of a plausible explanation covering the whole period. The earliest letter was over one year after the judgment delivered on 18th April 2024, and the applicant appeared to be reacting to the respondent's striking-out application. An implausible explanation is a standalone ground for refusal, so the application failed regardless of arguability of the appeal.
The legal framework governing extension of time under Rule 4
Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy; the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis, and a plausible explanation is the key that unlocks the balancing exercise
Rule 4 confers discretion 'on such terms as may be just', measured against the interests of justice: balancing the explanation for delay, prospects of success, importance of the case and prejudice. The Salat criteria frame the enquiry; explanation of delay is a crucial though not sole factor; without a plausible explanation the Court will not extend time even for a meritorious appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An unsatisfactory or implausible explanation for delay is a sufficient standalone ground to refuse extension of time regardless of the appeal's merits
- The explanation for delay must cover the entire period and be plausible and honest; a vague or partial explanation will not trigger the discretion
- Shifting blame to counsel without showing personal diligence is insufficient for extension of time
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Deeming the letters requesting typed proceedings as admitted and duly served out of time
The long delay was not satisfactorily accounted for; the explanation was implausible
Deeming the record of appeal filed on 17th December 2025 as duly filed and served
It followed from the refusal to validate the out-of-time letters; the reason for delay was unsatisfactory
Costs
The application dated 23rd January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
Extension of time is not right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
A plausible explanation, however, is the "key that unlocks the door" to this balancing exercise.
I am not persuaded that the reason ofiered is satisfactory. The upshot is that the application dated 23rd January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties or the appeal number; the case title and case number cannot be reliably recorded
Internal date inconsistency: the letters are described as 'all dated 2025' yet the earliest letter is dated 24th April 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kadima t/a Kadima & Company Advocates v Kedong Ranch Limited (Civil Application E231 of 2025) [2026] KECA 568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/568/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.