Kipyegon & another v Kirui & 2 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal gave a family extra time to appeal a succession ruling because their former lawyers never told them the judgment had been delivered.
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' explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal is plausible and satisfactory
- 2.Whether extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 112 days in filing the notice of appeal was satisfactorily explained
The delay was satisfactorily explained: the applicants' former advocates failed to inform them of the judgment, and the applicants acted promptly once aware.
The court found evidence that former advocates did not attend the judgment delivery, that the applicants formally complained to them without response, and that the advocates sat on a letter dated 19th May 2026 informing them of the judgment until 15th July 2026. The 2nd Respondent did not controvert the assertion that he informed the applicants on 1st July 2026, and the application was filed with promptitude under certificate of urgency.
Nature of the jurisdiction to extend time
The jurisdiction is discretionary and unfettered; extension is an equitable remedy, not a right, conditional on a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Both parties agreed on the applicable principles. The court restated that the discretion is unfettered but equitable in character, and that indulgence is unlocked only by a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary, equitable remedy requiring a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Court orders
#- 1.Applicants to file and serve their notice of appeal within 14 days following delivery of the ruling
- 2.Applicants to file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days after lodging the notice of appeal
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- Succession Cause No. 371 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (extension of time)
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.
The relief of extension of the time prescribed by the Rules is an equitable remedy not a right and the would be successful supplicant must give a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay to the court in order to unlock its indulgence.
I am satisfied that the Applicants did not become aware of the judgement intended to be appealed until 1st July 2026 and their application seeking extension of time was filed with the requisite promptitude under certificate of urgency.
I direct that the Applicants shall file and serve their notice of appeal within 14 days, following delivery of this ruling and thereafter file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days after lodging the Notice of appeal. The costs of the application shall abide the intended appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kipyegon & another v Kirui & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E112 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1796/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.