Daniel Hare Randu v Sweet Pie Company Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a 93-year-old appellant more time to appeal, ruling that a short, well-explained delay deserves discretion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in applying for extension of time was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
A delay of 20 days after expiry of the time for filing a Notice of Appeal was not inordinate, and the Applicant's explanation of non-communication by previous advocates, advanced age (93 years), and difficulty obtaining the judgment was reasonable and unrebutted.
The court weighed the length of delay against the reason offered. The Applicant filed the application 14 days after learning of the judgment. The claim that his previous advocates never notified him of the judgment, that he could not reach them, and that his daughter had to obtain the judgment copy due to his age was uncontroverted. A plausible and satisfactory explanation unlocks the court's discretion.
Whether the prior irregular filing of a Notice and Record of Appeal was an abuse of process disentitling the Applicant to relief
The court declined to treat the irregular filings as an abuse of process, since the Applicant denied instructing the filings and they were the subject of a pending striking-out application before the full bench.
The Respondent argued that the irregular Notice and Record of Appeal filed while the application was pending amounted to abuse of process. The court held that little should be said about those filings because the Applicant denied instructing them and a striking-out application was pending before the full bench, so their propriety remained to be determined separately.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The grounds raised were arguable; the court has no jurisdiction at the extension-of-time stage to determine the merits, including whether issues were pleaded below.
Relying on Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui, an arguable appeal is one that ought to be argued fully, not one that must succeed; a single bona fide arguable ground suffices. The court cannot at this stage rule on whether grounds were pleaded in the ELC or would sustain an appeal. Nor was the Respondent prejudiced by facing a 'hopeless' appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is an unfettered but equitable discretion to be exercised judiciously on a case-by-case basis, considering length of and reason for delay, arguability, and prejudice.
- An arguable appeal need only raise a single bona fide arguable ground and need not be one that must succeed.
Court orders
#- 1.Time within which the Applicant was to file a Notice of Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Environment and Land Court at Malindi (E. K. Makori J.) made on 25th November 2025 in ELC Case No. E011 of 2023 is extended
- 2.The Applicant shall file and serve the Notice of Appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Each party shall bear its costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- ELC Case No. E011 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Hare Randu v Sweet Pie Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Malindi Civil Appeal No. E006 of 2025 (extension of time application dated 29th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1180/eng@2026-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.