Pheris Wanjira Muriithi v Jecinta Wangechi Mukoma
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a landowner a second chance to appeal a lost case, but made her pay for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a single judge under rule 4 to extend time despite respondent's objection that no notice of appeal had been filed
The court held it had jurisdiction under rule 4 to entertain the application for extension of time
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 expressly empowers a single judge to extend time for doing any act authorized or required by the Rules. The court distinguished the jurisdiction question from compliance with rule 77 on notices of appeal, holding that the rule 4 discretion was properly invoked before it.
Whether the delay of nearly three months was sufficiently explained
Although not negligible, the delay was explained by lack of notification from former counsel and the applicant's prompt action upon discovering the judgment
The applicant learned of the judgment only on 12th February 2026 when she visited the court registry, after the fourteen-day period had lapsed on 10th December 2025. The delay was attributed to her former advocates' failure to communicate. The court accepted this explanation while still finding her partly culpable for lack of active diligence.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal raising fraud, validity of land transactions and Land Control Board consent was not frivolous
The court examined the draft memorandum of appeal and found that issues concerning the finding of fraud despite Land Control Board consent, and the enforceability of the alleged oral contract over LR Nyeri/Uasonyiro/901, raised serious triable questions fit for the appellate court's consideration.
Prejudice to the respondent and the effect of the taxed costs award
The respondent's taxed costs award alone did not outweigh the applicant's constitutional right of appeal, and extension of time has no relation to taxation of costs
The respondent argued the application was an afterthought brought after taxation of the party and party bill of costs on 25th February 2026. The court rejected this, holding that the timing relative to taxation was immaterial to the extension question, and that a taxed costs award does not defeat the constitutional right of appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right of a party but an equitable remedy available at the discretion of the court, granted only upon demonstration of sufficient cause and exercised judiciously
- The discretion under rule 4 to extend time is guided by four considerations: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th March 2026 is allowed
- 2.Leave granted to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The applicant to pay costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nyeri
- Nyeri ELCA No. E037 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pheris Wanjira Muriithi v Jecinta Wangechi Mukoma", Case Analysis (2026). Nyeri ELCA No. E037 of 2022 (application dated 14th March 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1027/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.