AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal (Application) E692 of 2025· [2026] KECA 1672 (KLR)
Maara v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd & another
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by Mumbi Ngugi, JA, on an application dated 11th November 2025 by John Karugu Maara seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against the High Court (Mongare J) judgment in HC Comm Case No. 136 of 2018 delivered on 1st September 2025, which dismissed his claim, allowed the 1st respondent's counterclaim, and entered judgment for Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd for Kshs. 29,601,819.23 with interest and costs. The applicant blamed registry delay in furnishing certified proceedings and an inadvertent failure by counsel to copy the respondents in the letter requesting proceedings, which precluded reliance on the proviso to rule 84(2). The 1st respondent opposed, pointing out that none of the annexures to the applicant's affidavit was marked, commissioned or notarised. Applying rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules and following Zaheer Jhanda and Pharmacy and Poisons Board, the court held that unmarked and unsealed annexures are of no evidentiary value. With no admissible evidence, the court could not exercise its rule 4 discretion, and the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent. In the interests of justice, the applicant was granted fourteen days to file a compliant application, failing which the leave would lapse. The High Court judgment itself was not disturbed; this ruling binds no court below on the merits and concerns only procedure and evidence on extension of time.
Key legal issues
#01
Evidentiary sufficiency of an extension-of-time application supported by unmarked and unnotarised annexures
Holding
Unmarked, unsealed and unnotarised annexures are of no evidentiary value, leaving the court with no basis on which to exercise its discretion under rule 4.
Reasoning
Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules requires exhibits to be securely sealed and marked with serial letters of identification. Following Zaheer Jhanda and Pharmacy and Poisons Board, the court held that non-compliant annexures cannot be relied upon. Without them, there was no evidence on which to assess delay, reasons, arguability or prejudice, so the discretion could not be exercised in the applicant's favour.
p. 7
Legal principles established
#- Where annexures to an affidavit are not marked and commissioned or notarised as required under rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, such documents cannot be relied on by the court.
- In a rule 4 extension-of-time application, the court considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11th November 2025 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- 2.In the interests of justice, the applicant is granted leave to file a compliant application within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling, failing which the leave granted shall lapse
- On appeal from
- High Court
- HC Comm Case No. 136 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 41(3) and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maara v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) E692 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1672/eng@2026-09-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.