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· [2026] KECA 710 (KLR)

Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equitorial Limited (Civil Application E625 of 2025) [2026] KECA 710 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 March 2026
PLPaul Lilan
1,186 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal granted extra time to file an appeal because registry delays, not the appellant, caused the late filing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-Judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered by Lilan, JA on 25th March 2026, on an application dated 28th October 2025 under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking extension of time to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal out of time. The intended appeal challenges a ruling of the High Court at Nairobi (Cherere J, HCCC No. E115 of 2024, delivered 27th March 2025) which ordered the applicant to pay Kshs. 2,300,000 with interest, release the original title to land parcel LR No. 15400/119 to the respondent, and bear the costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal the next day and applied immediately for certified proceedings, but the record was not lodged within the sixty days prescribed by rule 84; he attributed the delay to the registry's delay in preparing and certifying the documents, evidenced by follow-up letters of 7th April and 31st July 2025, notification on 11th August 2025, certification on 2nd September 2025, and a certificate of delay issued on 24th October 2025. Applying the settled factors in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi (length of delay, reason for delay, arguability, and prejudice), the Court found the delay largely attributable to the registry, held the intended appeal - including whether the High Court erred in determining the originating summons despite a pending jurisdictional challenge - to be arguable, and found no demonstrated prejudice since the respondent filed no opposition. The application was allowed; the record of appeal was to be filed and served within thirty days, with costs of the application abiding the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to lodge the record of appeal out of time under rule 4

Holding

The application was allowed: the delay was largely attributable to the High Court registry's delay in preparing and certifying proceedings, the intended appeal was arguable, and the unopposed respondent would suffer no prejudice.

Reasoning

The Court applied the Leo Sila Mutiso factors. The notice of appeal was filed the day after the ruling, the applicant applied for proceedings immediately and followed up, and the certificate of delay was only issued on 24th October 2025. The jurisdictional challenge raised an arguable point. No prejudice was demonstrated and any inconvenience could be compensated by costs. The discretion under rule 4 was exercised to facilitate just determination on the merits.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether to extend time for appealing is discretionary, and the Court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted and leave to file the record of appeal out of time
  2. 2.The record of appeal be filed and served within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the ruling
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court at Nairobi
HCCC No. E115 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (single Judge, extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equitorial Limited (Civil Application E625 of 2025) [2026] KECA 710 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/710/eng@2026-03-25

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