West Kenya Sugar Company Ltd v Haron Sikuta Sikuku, Naomi Nafula Sikuku & Dorah Nakhabi Sikuku
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused West Kenya Sugar more time to appeal a succession ruling because it could not explain a two-month delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was adequately explained
The delay was not explained: the applicant took about two months after service of the contempt application to move the court, and no affidavit was filed by the advocate who had the brief
The ruling was delivered on 27th October 2025 with a 14-day window for the Notice of Appeal, which was not filed. The applicant claimed awareness only upon service of a contempt application in February 2026, yet filed the present application around 17th April 2026 without explaining the intervening two months. The supporting affidavits were sworn by internal legal counsel rather than the advocate on record, with no explanation for the omission.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
Whether the payments to a third party constituted intermeddling under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act was an arguable point, but arguability alone did not justify extension
The court accepted that the question whether payments made before a grant was issued amounted to intermeddling contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act raised an arguable point. However, under the Salat principles, an arguable appeal is only one factor; the unexplained delay and absence of an affidavit from the advocate with the brief outweighed it.
Whether leave to appeal was required
The court did not need to determine this, as the application failed on the delay; the applicant relied on Wandi v Muchira that leave is not a prerequisite for appeals from the High Court's original jurisdiction in succession disputes
The respondents argued that leave had not been granted to appeal. The applicant invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Wandi v Muchira holding that leave is not a prerequisite for an appeal from an exercise of the High Court's original jurisdiction in a succession dispute. The court did not expressly rule on this point, dismissing instead on the delay and explanation grounds.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction
- The factors for extension of time are the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding and degree of prejudice to respondents
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17th April 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court at Bungoma
- High Court Succession Cause No. 5 of 2010: In the Matter of the estate of Wilberforce Sikuku Simiyu (deceased)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; sections 3(1), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 48, 50(1) and 164(3)(a) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar Company Ltd v Haron Sikuta Sikuku, Naomi Nafula Sikuku & Dorah Nakhabi Sikuku", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega Civil Application No. E031 of 2026 (Formerly Kisumu Civil Application No. E009 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2035/eng@2026-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.