Emmy Chesang & 5 others v Kenya County Government Workers Union & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed six workers to appeal late because a court registry delay, not their own fault, caused the missed deadline.
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 extension of time to lodge and serve a notice of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately 27 days in lodging the notice of appeal has been satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the respondents will suffer prejudice incapable of compensation by costs if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Reason for the delay - attribution to the court registry
The approximately 27-day delay was satisfactorily explained: the applicants uploaded the notice of appeal on the e-filing portal within the statutory period and the registry's administrative delay caused the late lodgement.
The applicants uploaded the notice of appeal on 22nd June 2026, four days after the ruling of 18th June 2026 and within the statutory period. Lodgement only occurred on 14th July 2026 due to the registry's administrative delay. The court found this constituted circumstances beyond the applicants' control, evidencing diligence rather than indolence, and thus a sufficient basis for exercising discretion.
Prejudice to the respondents
The alleged prejudice from delayed implementation of the judgment, including prior contempt and compliance proceedings, was not irreparable and could be compensated by costs.
The 1st respondent cited prolonged delay in implementation of the judgment, unpaid salaries and benefits, and repeated compliance and contempt proceedings. The court accepted the concern as legitimate but held the prejudice was compensable in costs, so it did not bar the extension.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The Single Judge declined to assess the chances of the intended appeal succeeding, holding that determination of arguability was not for a Single Judge.
Although the chances of success is a recognised factor under Leo Sila Mutiso, the judge sitting in chambers as a Single Judge declined to delve into the merits of the intended appeal, resting the decision instead on the satisfactory explanation for the delay and absence of irreparable prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Where a notice of appeal is uploaded on the e-filing portal within the statutory period, delay in lodgement occasioned by the court registry's administrative delay is a satisfactory explanation for the delay and justifies extension of time under Rule 4.
- Prejudice occasioned by delay in an extension-of-time application may, in appropriate circumstances, be adequately compensated by an award of costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' motion dated 31st July 2026 is allowed
- 2.Extension of time to file the intended appeal, with directions 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 - Rule 4)
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 delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond the applicants' control and this cannot be said to be unreasonable, implausible, or indicative of indolence.
It is trite that prejudice occasioned by delay may, in appropriate circumstances, be adequately compensated by an award of costs.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram names 'HASSAN, J.A' while the signature block reads 'AHMED ISSACK'; judge name reconstructed as Ahmed Issack Hassan.
Pagination footer is inconsistent, repeatedly reading 'of 9' while the document runs to 13 pages.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emmy Chesang & 5 others v Kenya County Government Workers Union & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E126 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2003/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.