Lewa Wildlife Conservancy Limited v Hellen Joan Njeri Kigomo
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to forgive an insurer's unexplained delay in filing an appeal record, letting the original judgment stand.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was satisfactorily explained so as to justify extension of time under rule 4
The delay was not satisfactorily explained. The first batch of proceedings, relevant to the intended appeal, was issued within the statutory period and notification was sent on 21st June 2024; no explanation was given why the appeal was not filed within the statutory period, and any further proceedings could have been filed by way of a supplementary record.
The court traced the chronology: the ruling was delivered on 24th April 2024, the notice of appeal lodged on 16th May 2024, and a letter bespeaking proceedings written on 31st July 2024. The registry's email of 19th September 2024 showed proceedings were ready on 21st June 2024 and notification issued. It was not denied that notification was sent, from which the court deduced the proceedings were picked. Since the first batch was sufficient for the intended appeal and a supplementary record was available under rules 90 and 94, the applicant's reliance on a certificate of delay was misplaced. The court exercised its rule 4 discretion against the applicant, finding the delay long, unexplained and prejudicial.
Whether the applicant would suffer prejudice or the respondent would be prejudiced by the extension
The delay was long and would be prejudicial to the respondent; litigation must come to an end and successful litigants are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their judgments.
The court accepted the respondent's submission that granting the application would prolong litigation, leave the respondent under continuing uncertainty despite a determination by a competent court, and impose additional financial burdens. Although it found the grounds of appeal may not be frivolous, this did not outweigh the unexplained delay and prejudice. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court may extend time limited by the Rules for doing any act, whether before or after the act, on such terms as may be just
- There is no mandatory requirement under rule 89 that certified copies of proceedings must first be obtained before filing the record of appeal; a litigant may file the record within time and later lodge a supplementary record under rules 90 and 94
- Where proceedings are issued within the statutory 60-day period, the registry is entitled to decline to issue a certificate of delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Milimani)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 42, 43 & 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 and sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lewa Wildlife Conservancy Limited v Hellen Joan Njeri Kigomo", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1295/eng@2026-07-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.