Njoroge & 11 others v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave twelve landowners more time to appeal, confirming that a well-explained delay can be forgiven in the interest of justice.
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 should be granted leave to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of about four months and ten days has been satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 4.Whether the Respondents will suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the Record and Memorandum of Appeal was satisfactorily explained
Although part of the delay (after supply of proceedings on 24th June 2026) was unexplained, the court, in the interest of justice under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, found the principles satisfied and extended time.
The court accepted that the Applicants requested typed proceedings on 25th March 2026 and were supplied on 24th June 2026, with a Certificate of Delay issued on 2nd July 2026. Though the 1st Respondent showed an unexplained gap of about a month after supply, the single Judge invoked the overriding objective in Sections 3A and 3B to hold that justice favoured granting leave, and found no prejudice to the Respondents.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The court declined to determine arguability, holding that a single Judge should not delve into the merits of the intended appeal.
The Applicants asserted arguable issues concerning res judicata, new cause of action and party participation, but the Judge held that assessing arguability would require determining the merits of the intended appeal, which is beyond a single Judge sitting under Rule 4, and so declined to consider the issue further.
Prejudice to the Respondents
The court found the Respondents would suffer no prejudice if the extension was granted.
Applying the fourth principle from the extension-of-time jurisprudence, the Judge found that granting leave would merely allow the Applicants to ventilate their appeal, while the Respondents would suffer no prejudice, tipping the discretion in favour of the Applicants.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy, not a right, granted to a deserving party on a case-by-case basis having regard to the length of and reason for delay, arguability and prejudice.
- There is no maximum or minimum period of delay prescribed by law; what matters is a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Applicants to file the Record and Memorandum of Appeal out of time
- 2.Applicants to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within Thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Naivasha
- ELC Case No. E055 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour.
Accordingly, the Applicants Notice of Motion application dated 28th July, 2026 has merit and it is hereby allowed. The Applicants are to file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within Thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram lists the Judge as 'AI HASSAN, JA' while the signature block reads 'AHMED ISSACK'; the same judge is rendered inconsistently.
The filing date of the application is stated as 28th July 2026 and, in the same paragraph, as 29th July 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & 11 others v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E132 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1996/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.