Solfin Solutions Ltd v Mwakima (Civil Application E070 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1566 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal excused Solfin Solutions' two-day late appeal filing but left its key requests to a full panel of judges.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether, as a single judge, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
- 2.Whether the application is defective.
- 3.Whether time should be extended within which the applicant should file the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal.
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application?
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a single judge over omnibus applications
The single judge could determine only the prayers for extension of time and deeming of filings; prayers for stay and leave to appeal are reserved for a full bench.
Rule 55(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 excludes applications for leave to appeal and for stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings from the single-judge track. The applicant conceded the court had no jurisdiction over the stay prayers. The judge therefore severed the competent prayers, noted that the leave prayer must go to a full bench, and directed the applicant to seek a date before a full bench for the undetermined prayers.
Defects in the supporting affidavit and exhibits
The omission of the place of swearing in the jurat and the manner of sealing exhibits were technical defects of form cured by Article 159(2)(d) and Order 19 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Although Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act uses 'shall', the deponent's identity and swearing before a Commissioner for Oaths were unchallenged. All exhibits except the arbitral award were serialized and stamped; the deviation was one of form. Striking out the affidavit would deny the applicant a hearing; substantive justice prevails over such technicalities, consistent with Kenneth K. Mwangi v City County of Nairobi.
Extension of time to file Notice and Memorandum of Appeal
The delay of about 2 days beyond the 14-day period in Rule 77 was not inordinate, no prejudice was shown, and the prayers for deeming the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal as duly filed were granted.
Applying the settled principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi and Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge, the court found the delay short and explained (e-filing fee prompt failure), the screenshot evidence weak but the delay minimal, and no prejudice to the respondent since the merits await the full bench. The applicant was accorded an opportunity to be heard on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Applications for leave to appeal, and for stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings, fall outside a single judge's jurisdiction and must be heard by a full bench under Rule 55(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022.
- Omnibus applications mixing prayers for a single judge with prayers for a full bench create an untidy situation requiring referral of the undetermined prayers to a full bench.
- An affidavit whose jurat omits the place of swearing, and exhibits not sealed strictly per Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, are curable defects in the light of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and Order 19 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The principles for extension of time are: length of and explanation for the delay, whether the intended appeal is possibly arguable, and prejudice to the respondent; each case turns on its own circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Appeal dated 7th July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as duly filed.
- 2.The said Notice of Motion dated 7th July 2025 be served within 7 days of the date of this Ruling.
- 3.The Memorandum of Appeal dated 31st July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as duly filed, and the same be served within 7 days of this Ruling.
- 4.Costs are awarded to the respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9); Rules 4, 5(2)(b), 43, 44(1), 45, 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Prayers 3 and 4 (stay of execution) and prayer 6 (leave to appeal)
A single judge has no jurisdiction to determine applications for stay of execution or leave to appeal; these must be heard by a full bench.
Costs of the application sought by the applicant
Costs were awarded to the respondent notwithstanding the granting of extension of time.
Costs
Costs are awarded to the respondent.
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 Court may, on such terms as may be just, by order, extend the time limited by these Rules, or by any decision of the Court or of a superior court, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court's flow of discretionary favour.
The discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered, but it has to be exercised judicially, not on whim, sympathy or caprice.
The Notice of Appeal dated 7th July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as duly filed.
The Memorandum of Appeal dated 31st July 2025 be and is hereby deemed as duly filed, and the same be served within 7 days of this Ruling.
Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The order for service references 'Notice of Motion dated 7th July 2025' although the application is throughout described as dated 31st July 2025.
The deeming order describes the Memorandum of Appeal as dated 31st July 2025 while the affidavit describes it as dated 30th July 2025.
The judgment quotes Article 159(2)(d) on substantive justice but in a later passage cites Article 159(2)(b) for the same proposition.
The impugned decision is described both as a ruling of the High Court (delivered 2nd July 2025) and as one the applicant faults for refusing review of that ruling; the procedural chain is not fully clear.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Solfin Solutions Ltd v Mwakima (Civil Application E070 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1566 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Civil Application, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1566/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.