Sikawa v Ere Build Systems Ltd
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let a man appeal late because his US residence explained the 84-day delay, and money awards can compensate for 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 applicant has given a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if extension of time is granted
Key legal issues
#Extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The applicant gave a satisfactory explanation for the 84-day delay and the respondent would suffer no serious prejudice; extension was merited
Rule 4 confers an unfettered discretion but does not prescribe factors; the well-settled principles from Fakir Mohamed apply: length and reason for delay, chances of success, prejudice to the respondent, and other relevant factors. The applicant's residence in the US was uncontroverted, and the advocate's prior involvement did not preclude a failure to communicate the ruling. Prejudice was quantifiable as the appeal concerns a financial award.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 30th July 2024 allowed
- 2.Leave granted to file the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time against the ruling of D. Majanja, J. in Misc. Arbitration Cause E017 and E019 of 2023, within 14 days, and to serve within 21 days
- 3.Extension of time granted to file an application seeking leave to appeal against the decision of D. Majanja, J., within 21 days
- 4.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
- High Court, Commercial and Tax Division
- Misc. Arbitration Cause E017 and E019 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Certification that matters of general public importance are involved in the intended appeal to the Supreme Court
The single judge considered only the extension-of-time limb; the rest of the application was left for a full bench
Costs
The costs of this application shall be 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.
The Court may, on such terms as may be just, by order, extend the time limited by these Rules, or by any decision of the Court or of a superior court, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules
The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the effect of delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance- are all relevant but not exhaustive factors
The application dated 30th July, 2024 is merited and the same be and is hereby allowed
Issues in the judgment
#Judge's name spelled differently in coram and signature block
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sikawa v Ere Build Systems Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E390 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1828/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.