Alex Kipngeno A Koech & Another v Priscillar Chepkemoi Mutai
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for an appeal filed five months late, ruling that blaming a former advocate without proof is not a valid excuse.
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 single judge has jurisdiction to grant stay of execution under an omnibus application
- 2.Whether leave is required for a new firm of advocates to come on record post-judgment
- 3.Whether the applicants deserve an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a single judge over stay of execution
The single judge lacks jurisdiction; stay of execution is a Rule 5(2)(b) matter reserved for a full bench.
The omnibus application included a stay prayer. Rule 4 empowers a single judge only to extend time for doing acts required by the Rules. Stay of execution falls under Rule 5(2)(b), which only a full bench may determine, so the prayer was not properly before the single judge.
Leave for new advocates to come on record
Leave was unnecessary since the new firm had not previously acted for the applicants in the Court of Appeal.
The applicants' former advocates acted only in the High Court. Following the alleged breakdown of the client-advocate relationship, the applicants could freely appoint new advocates to pursue an appeal post-judgment without seeking the court's leave.
Extension of time under Rule 4
Extension refused; the delay of close to five months was inordinate and unsatisfactorily explained.
The applicants attributed the delay to a communication breakdown with their former advocates over fees. The respondent swore the first applicant and the former advocate were present when judgment was delivered, an averment the applicants did not deny. Blaming the former advocate without justifiable cause showed lack of diligence and candour, disentitling them from the discretionary relief.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge has no jurisdiction to grant stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b); that power rests with a full bench of the Court.
- Where the client-advocate relationship has broken down post-judgment, a party may appoint new advocates to institute an appeal without leave of the court.
- An inordinate, unexplained delay disentitles an applicant from the exercise of discretion to extend time under Rule 4.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer (d) for stay of execution struck out as not properly before the single judge
- 2.Prayer (b) for leave for new advocates to come on record found unnecessary
- 3.Application dated 13th July 2026 dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Kericho HCCA/E014 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (single judge, in chambers)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file notice of appeal and record of appeal
Delay of close to five months was inordinate and unexplained; applicants blamed their former advocate without justifiable cause and lacked diligence and candour
Stay of execution of the High Court judgment
Outside the single judge's jurisdiction; a Rule 5(2)(b) matter for a full bench
Costs
Application 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 have no jurisdiction to entertain that prayer as it sounds under Rule 5(2) (b) a matter that can only be heard and determined a full bench of the Court.
I find that the delay of close to five months is inordinate and has not been satisfactorily explained.
The Applicants have instead demonstrated a singular lack of diligence and candor. They are not worthy of the exercise of my discretion to extend time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
Accordingly, I find no merits in the application dated 13 th July 2026 and dismiss it with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Page numbering inconsistent ('Page 8 of 5')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alex Kipngeno A Koech & Another v Priscillar Chepkemoi Mutai", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E108 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1769/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.