Benson Bwire Odhiambo v Columbia Developers (K) Limited
The bottom line
#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 applicant should be granted extension of time to file and serve the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the memorandum and record of appeal filed on 13th October, 2025 without leave should be deemed duly filed and served
Key legal issues
#Principles governing extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
The court applies the crystallised factors: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.
The court restated the settled test from Leo Sila Mutiso, Salat vs IEBC and Anti-Counterfeit Authority, holding that an applicant must account for the entire period of delay with plausible, evidenced reasons before discretion under rule 4 can be exercised in their favour.
Whether the applicant's reasons for delay were satisfactory
No - the applicant failed to produce the letter requesting typed proceedings or the certificate of delay, and gave no evidence of financial hardship.
The applicant asserted he requested proceedings and could not raise Kshs.101,500 in filing fees due to non-payment of salary, but produced no documentary proof of the request, the certificate of delay, or his impecuniosity, so the proviso to rule 84(2) was not satisfied.
Whether the delay was inordinate
Yes - even counting from receipt of proceedings, the record was filed 14 days late, and the application itself was lodged a further six months later with no explanation.
The court held that even accepting the applicant's own chronology, the 60-day period lapsed on 29th September 2025 and the record was filed on 13th October 2025; the further six-month delay in moving the court under rule 4 was wholly unexplained, compounding the inordinate delay.
Legal principles established
#- Lack of money or impecuniosity is generally not a valid reason for extending time to lodge an appeal, though each case turns on its own facts
- The whole period of delay must be stated and explained to the satisfaction of the Court when considering extension of time
- Documents filed out of time and without leave of the Court are a nullity
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed
- 2.The memorandum of appeal and record of appeal filed on 13th October, 2025 are struck out
- 3.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- E.L.R.C. No. E417 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4 and 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time
Delay unexplained; no evidence of request for proceedings or certificate of delay; impecuniosity not a valid reason; further six-month delay in filing the application unexplained
Deeming the memorandum and record of appeal filed on 13th October, 2025 as duly filed and served
Documents filed out of time and without leave are a nullity
Costs
There will be no orders to costs.
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.
lack of money or impecuniosity on the part of an applicant cannot and has never been accepted as a valid reason for extending time to lodge an appeal.
in considering whether or not to extend time, the whole period of delay should be stated and explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
I find that the said documents, as they are filed out of time and without leave of this Court, are a nullity.
In the result, I find that the application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The memorandum of appeal and record of appeal filed on 13th October, 2025 are struck out. There will be no orders to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of presentation of record for filing stated as 25th September 2025 in one paragraph and 27th September 2025 in another
Page numbering anomalous: pages run to 'Page 10 of 7'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benson Bwire Odhiambo v Columbia Developers (K) Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) No. E848 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1750/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.