Kiunge & another v Kiunge & another
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to forgive a 27-day late appeal because the applicants gave no good reason for the delay and showed no draft appeal.
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 applicants have met the threshold for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and record of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of 27 days in filing the Notice of Appeal was excusable
The delay was not excusable because certified copies of proceedings are not needed to file a Notice of Appeal and no difficulty in filing was alleged.
Although no minimum or maximum period of delay is prescribed, the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay and show its cause is excusable. The sole reason given was bespeaking proceedings, but a Notice of Appeal requires no such copies, and no difficulty in filing was stated, so the explanation failed.
Whether the intended appeal had chances of success
The applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable intended appeal because no draft Memorandum of Appeal was attached.
While a single Judge does not determine the merits of an intended appeal with finality, the applicants did not annex a draft Memorandum of Appeal, so there was no evidence that an intended appeal exists or is worthy of ventilation.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 is the only provision conferring jurisdiction on the Court to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal.
- An applicant for extension of time bears the burden of satisfactorily explaining the delay and that its cause is excusable.
- A single Judge does not determine with finality whether an intended appeal has merits.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 12th June 2026 seeking extension of time is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nyeri
- Succession Cause No. 582 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal and record of appeal out of time
Delay not excusable; no draft Memorandum of Appeal annexed to show an intended appeal worth ventilating
Costs
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.
It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
the applicant bears the burden of satisfactorily explaining that there is delay and that the cause of that delay is excusable
Consequently, the application is found to be lacking in merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiunge & another v Kiunge & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E055 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1696/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.