Matolo v Deputy County Commissioner, Makueni & 5 others (Civil Application E484 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1280 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for an appeal because the six-month delay was not satisfactorily explained.
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 applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay of about six months in filing the notice of appeal
- 2.Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend time to file and serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Factors governing the exercise of discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The discretion is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, considering the length of and reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, prejudice to respondents, and public interest.
The court relied on Salat vs IEBC (Supreme Court) for the equitable, case-by-case nature of extension of time, and on Fakir Mohamed vs Joseph Mugambi for the non-exhaustive list of relevant factors including period and reason for delay, chances of success, prejudice, effect on public administration and compliance with time limits.
Whether the applicant's explanation for the six-month delay sufficed
The explanation was inadequate: the claim that counsel was not notified of judgment was unsupported by affidavit; the registry-delay claim was irrelevant since a certified copy is not needed for a notice of appeal; and the inference was that the applicant acted only when taxation of costs was imminent.
The judgment should have been challenged by a notice of appeal by 20th March 2024, yet the application came six months later. The claim of non-notification required an affidavit from the advocate; no application had been made to the ELC for certified proceedings; the totality pointed to unexplained inactivity.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is an equitable remedy, not a right; the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously.
- A certified copy of the judgment is not required to enable a party to file a notice of appeal; delay in supplying a certified copy cannot justify delay in filing a notice of appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18th September 2024 for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Makueni ELC Judicial Review No. E021 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal
The six-month inactivity was not satisfactorily explained; the advocate's claim of non-notification of judgment was unsupported by affidavit, and a certified copy of the judgment was not required to file a notice of appeal; the applicant appeared to have been jolted to activity by imminent taxation of costs.
Costs
It is accordingly 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.
Although the Court has unfettered discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend time, that discretion should be exercised judiciously.
The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possible) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted
In my view, the inactivity on the part of the applicant for six months is not satisfactorily explained. I find no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matolo v Deputy County Commissioner, Makueni & 5 others (Civil Application E484 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 18th September 2024 (undetermined appeal against Makueni ELC Judicial Review No. E021 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1280/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.