Wang'ombe & 2 others (As officials of the African Independent Pentecostal Church of Kenya) v Mwangi, Namemia, Kariuki (Suing as officials of the Specialized Healing Miracles Centre) & 4 others (Civil Appeal E053 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1609 (KLR)

The Court agreed with the High Court and the respondents that Covid-19 measures were imposed in March 2020, not 2019 as the appellants claimed. It nonetheless noted that the impugned judgment was delivered in June 2020, soon after the pandemic struck, disrupting court operations, so it was plausible the parties received no notice of delivery. Relying on Mwasuna and Ngoso, it held the absence of notice compromised the appellants' right of appeal and sufficed to enlarge time, distinguishing the general duty of litigants to follow up their cases.

Extension of time is an exercise of discretion that must rest on sound judicial principles. The Court adopted Madan JA's five grounds in United India Insurance as the only basis for disturbing the Judge's exercise of discretion, and added that an applicant must supply 'the peg with which it can pitch its tent' - material upon which the discretion can be exercised in his favour. Once lack of notice of delivery of the judgment was accepted, the High Court's conclusion that the delay was unexplained could not stand.

The High Court had faulted the appellants for not writing to the lower court to enquire about the progress of their matter after close of submissions. The Court of Appeal accepted the general duty as trite but tempered it with the broad equity approach in Chemwolo: unless there is fraud or intention to overreach, no error or default cannot be put right by payment of costs, since courts exist to decide the rights of the parties, not to impose discipline.