Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedKakamega Civil Application No. E019 of 2026 (Formerly Kisumu Civil Application No. E037 of 2026)· [2026] KECA 2026 (KLR)

Francisca Apondi Owira v Kenya Revenue Authority

Court of Appeal
19 June 2026
1,784 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a late appeal-filing request because the applicant couldn't satisfactorily explain a three-month delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge (in chambers) ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kakamega on a Motion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, by Francisca Apondi Owira seeking extension of time to lodge and serve a Record of Appeal against a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Nderitu, J) delivered on 15th May 2025 in Bungoma ELRC Cause No. E004 of 2024. The applicant relied on a certificate of delay issued only on 7th October 2025 and on her advocate's engagement in a consultancy for recruitment at the County Public Service Board, Bungoma. The respondent opposed, noting non-service of the Notice of Appeal within the Rule 77 period and absence of evidence for the explanations offered. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Ors, the court held that the relevant period for computing delay ran from 7th October 2025 when certified copies and the certificate of delay were availed, meaning the 60-day Rule 84 period expired on 7th December 2025; the application filed on 2nd March 2026 was about three months late. The Gazette Notices showed the advocate's consultancy had lapsed on 3rd December 2025, and there was no suggestion the instructing firm, BS Advocates LLP, could not attend to client matters. The court found the delay and its explanations unsatisfactory, noted that the asserted arguable grounds (including an alleged disregard of the doctrine of precedent) were not amplified, and dismissed the application with no order on costs, the respondent having filed no submissions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 3 months in filing the application after obtaining certified copies was satisfactorily explained

Holding

The delay was inordinate and unexplained; the advocate's consultancy ended 3rd December 2025 and did not prevent filing, and the firm was never shown to be unable to attend to client matters.

Reasoning

The court computed the 60-day Rule 84 period from 7th October 2025, when certified copies and the certificate of delay were availed, expiring 7th December 2025. The application was filed 2nd March 2026. The Gazette Notices showed the advocate's consultancy ran from about 11th September to 3rd December 2025, so it had lapsed before the deadline, and there was no suggestion the firm's offices were closed.

p. 10
02

Whether the intended appeal was arguable

Holding

The applicant's assertion of arguable grounds, including that the judge ignored the doctrine of precedent, was not amplified in the affidavit or submissions and did not assist her.

Reasoning

Although arguability is a Salat factor, a bare assertion without amplification cannot establish a deserving case. The court was not satisfied the applicant met her burden of laying a basis for the exercise of discretion in her favour.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to extend time under Rule 4 is unfettered but must be exercised on the Salat principles; the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
  • The relevant timeline for assessing delay runs from the date certified copies of proceedings and certificate of delay are availed, not the date of judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 19th December 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order on costs
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Bungoma ELRC Cause No. E004 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francisca Apondi Owira v Kenya Revenue Authority", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega Civil Application No. E019 of 2026 (Formerly Kisumu Civil Application No. E037 of 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2026/eng@2026-06-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.