Chesang & 5 others v Kenya County Government Workers Union & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave six county workers four extra months' grace to appeal, ruling that a lawyer's honest mistake shouldn't block their day in court.
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 an extension of time to lodge and serve a notice of appeal out of time against the rulings of 6th February 2026 and 18th June 2026
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately four months has been satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the respondents will suffer prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the inordinate delay of approximately four months in lodging the notice of appeal was satisfactorily explained
Yes. The delay was attributable to counsel's honest but mistaken belief that the contempt ruling of 6th February 2026 and the sentencing ruling of 18th June 2026 formed one continuous adjudication, so the notice was lodged after the sentencing ruling.
Applying Mutiso and Salat, the Single Judge found the delay inordinate but accepted counsel's explanation as an honest mistake, citing Belinda Murai that a mistake by an experienced lawyer should not close the door of justice. A sufficient basis was therefore laid for the exercise of discretion in the applicants' favour.
Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice incapable of compensation if the extension were granted
No. Although the union's concern about prolonged enforcement and repeated contempt proceedings was legitimate, the alleged prejudice was not irreparable and could be compensated by costs.
The court acknowledged the union's legitimate concern that compliance and contempt proceedings had been necessary to secure obedience to the ELRC's orders, but held that compensable prejudice does not justify refusing an otherwise merited extension of time.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The Single Judge declined to assess the merits of the intended appeal, holding that this was not for a Single Judge to determine at the extension-of-time stage.
The court treated the arguability factor as one it need not resolve, proceeding instead on the explanation for delay and absence of irreparable prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is discretionary and is assessed on the length of and reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondent.
- A counsel's honest mistake in lodging a notice of appeal should not be visited upon the litigants so as to deny them access to justice.
- Prejudice occasioned by delay in filing an appeal may in appropriate circumstances be adequately compensated by an award of costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' notice of motion dated 28th July 2026 is allowed
- 2.Applicants to file and serve the Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders shall be vacated
- 3.Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the appeal
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 Kericho
- ELRC No. E016 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 43 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to file a notice of appeal out 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.
Accordingly, the applicants’ motion dated 28th July 2026 is merited, and the same is hereby allowed.
I direct the applicants to file and serve the Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, failure to which the orders herein shall be vacated.
Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the appeal.
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour.
a mistake is a mistake. It is no less a mistake because it is an unfortunate slip. The door of justice is not closed because a mistake has been made by a lawyer of experience who ought to have known better.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chesang & 5 others v Kenya County Government Workers Union & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E128 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1997/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.