Alice Nduta Mburu & 5 Others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused six applicants a second chance to seek Supreme Court review, ruling their repeat application was barred and an abuse of process.
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' application for extension of time is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether a second application for extension of time seeking orders already declined is maintainable
The application was dismissed as res judicata and an abuse of process; the applicants sought to re-litigate orders declined by Muchelule, JA. on 28th February 2025, and the correct remedy was a Rule 57 reference, not a fresh Rule 4 application.
The court traced the procedural history: a 2019 leave application struck out as filed out of time; a November 2024 Rule 4 extension application dismissed on 28th February 2025; and the present April 2025 application seeking identical orders. Re-litigating an adjudicated matter without a Rule 57 reference is res judicata and abusive, so the discretion need not be exercised and other issues need not be considered.
Legal principles established
#- A fresh application for extension of time seeking the same orders already declined by the Court is res judicata and an abuse of the court process; the proper course against a Single Judge's decision is a reference under Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 16th April 2025
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an application for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The application seeks to re-litigate a matter already adjudicated in the ruling of 28th February 2025; it is res judicata and an abuse of court process
Costs
The application dated 16th April 2025 was dismissed with costs 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.
I therefore decline to exercise the Court’s discretion in favour of the applicants and hereby dismiss the application dated dated 16th April 2025 with costs to the respondent.
The matter is res judicata. Having concluded thus, I need not consider the other matters raised in the application.
The respondent is therefore quite right in terming this second application as an abuse of the court process as it is not a reference, as one might have envisaged, under Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling dated 25th September 2026, a year after the 19th November 2025 hearing and the 2025 application number; the year appears erroneous
Duplicated word in the disposition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alice Nduta Mburu & 5 Others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E250 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1735/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.