Webtribe Limited t/a Jamnopay v Jambopay Express Limited
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal struck out Webtribe's appeal because it never served the notice of appeal and gave no explanation for the nine-month delay.
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 supporting affidavit sworn by Ven Rasugu instead of Seth Ojienda as named on the notice of motion is incompetent
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to serve the notice of appeal out of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Competency of the supporting affidavit
The discrepancy between the named deponent (Seth Ojienda) and the actual deponent (Ven Rasugu) did not render the affidavit incompetent, as it was duly sworn, commissioned, and supported the application
The court found no challenge to the deponent's capacity or to the affidavit's form and substance. The mere mismatch between the intended deponent named on the motion and the actual deponent was not fatal where the contents expressly support the application.
Extension of time to serve notice of appeal
The application was dismissed because the applicant offered no explanation for the nine-and-a-half-month delay in serving the notice of appeal and in filing the application
The notice of appeal was filed within time under rule 77, but service under rule 79 was never effected. The applicant's claim of service on 8th July 2025 was unsupported by evidence. The entire period of delay must be stated and satisfactorily explained; absent explanation, the court does not reach the other Salat factors.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under rule 4 requires a satisfactory explanation of the entire period of delay before other factors such as prejudice and prospects of success are considered
- A party alleging service of documents must adduce evidence of that service; uncontroverted averments of non-service stand
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2026 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal filed on 12th June, 2025 are not properly on record and are struck out
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Civil Suit No. 159 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4 and 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Extension of time to serve the notice of appeal out of time
No explanation was offered for the delay in serving the notice of appeal and in bringing the application
Costs
The application is 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.
1. The notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2026 is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
2. The memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal filed on 12th June, 2025 are not properly on record and are hereby struck out.
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour.
the entire period of delay must be stated and explained to the satisfaction of this Court
Issues in the judgment
#Deponent's name inconsistently rendered as 'Ven Rasugu' and 'Ven Rusungu' in the same judgment
Page numbering anomalies ('Page 11 of 10') suggest formatting defects in the certified copy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Webtribe Limited t/a Jamnopay v Jambopay Express Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) No. E519 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1749/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.