Imbwaka & another v Kingdom Bank Ltd (Former Jamii Bora Ltd) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E677 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1255 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for filing an appeal because the applicants couldn't explain a delay of over a year and a half.
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 applicants should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the delay of over one year and five months was satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether absence of prejudice justifies enlargement of time
Key legal issues
#Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4
The discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered but must be exercised judicially on the settled principles of length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
The court restated the principles from Leo Sila Mutiso, Fakir Mohamed and Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat. The delay here exceeded one year and five months from the ruling of 16th February 2024 and was plainly inordinate, calling for a plausible and satisfactory explanation which the applicants failed to give.
Sufficiency of the explanation for the delay
The explanation based on non-supply of the certified ruling failed: no certificate of delay was produced, a certified ruling is not needed to lodge a notice of appeal, and the applicants' chronology was internally inconsistent.
The applicants claimed the ruling was only availed on 30th October 2025, yet their application was filed on 28th July 2025, undermining credibility. Without a certificate of delay the alleged administrative delay remained unverified and could not discount the delay period.
Arguability and prejudice in the Rule 4 balance
The intended appeal was arguable and no prejudice was demonstrated to the respondents, but neither factor alone justified enlargement of time given the inordinate, unexplained delay.
The court accepted that the issues on competence of pleadings by an unqualified entity, res judicata and contempt met the low arguability threshold, and found no demonstrated prejudice. However, absence of prejudice cannot cure a fundamentally deficient explanation for delay.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of delay is the recognised legal basis for accounting for time spent awaiting proceedings or a ruling; absent it, alleged administrative delay cannot explain or discount the period of delay.
- A party does not require a certified copy of a ruling in order to lodge a notice of appeal.
- Arguability of an intended appeal and absence of prejudice to the respondent cannot cure an inordinate and unexplained delay under Rule 4.
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 28th July 2025 is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court (superior court)
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 41 and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to file an appeal out of time against the ruling of Chepkwony, J. delivered on 16th February 2024
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; no certificate of delay was produced and the applicants did not need a certified ruling to lodge a notice of appeal
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling; the underlying application before the superior court had been 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.
The motion dated 28th July 2025 is dismissed accordingly.
no certificate of delay has been produced, which is the recognised legal basis for accounting for and excluding time allegedly spent awaiting proceedings or a ruling
arguability, while present, does not of itself justify the exercise of discretion in the face of an inordinate and unexplained delay
I find that the applicants have not satisfied the threshold for enlargement of time under Rule 4, and accordingly the discretion of the Court ought not to be exercised in their favour
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency in the judgment: the ruling is said to be delivered on 3rd July 2026 while the motion sought enlargement in respect of a delay described in a ruling dated 16th February 2024 with a request of 6th March 2024; the motion is dated 28th July 2025, yet the applicants assert the ruling was only availed on 30th October 2025, after the motion was filed.
The case title and case number of the appeal/motion are not stated in the text; the heading is missing from the copy provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imbwaka & another v Kingdom Bank Ltd (Former Jamii Bora Ltd) & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E677 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1255 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (motion dated 28th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1255/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.