Agricultural Finance Corporation & another v Mwangi (Miscellaneous Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1944 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to let an applicant appeal late because the explanation for the delay was unconvincing and no draft appeal was attached.
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 Applicant has given a good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to extend time
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant's explanation for the delay constituted good and sufficient cause under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
The Court found the explanation - inability to obtain the official copy of the ruling - not plausible, since the ruling was delivered in the presence of counsel and was available on the Judiciary Case Tracking System within 24 hours.
The Court applied the Salat principles. The ruling was delivered in the presence of Mr Mutuma holding brief for Mr Mabonga for the Applicants, and was extracted from the Judiciary Case Tracking System, where rulings are uploaded within 24 hours. The Applicant never claimed the ruling was uploaded late. Hence the excuse that it took time to obtain the ruling was implausible and could not found the exercise of discretion.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The Court could not determine arguability because the Applicant neither attached a draft Memorandum of Appeal nor set out the grounds of the intended appeal in the supporting affidavit.
Relying on Raballa v Judicial Service Commission, the Court held that the period of delay and the reasons for it take primacy of consideration, and arguability would only outweigh other considerations in borderline cases. Without a draft memorandum, the first two factors already failed, and the Applicant could not demonstrate that the appeal deserved a day in court.
Legal principles established
#- A plausible explanation for the delay is essential in an application to extend time to appeal.
- Where the applicant has not demonstrated good and sufficient cause for the delay, arguability of the intended appeal cannot save the application.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 10th July 2025 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Mukurwe-ini Magistrates' Court (Mukurwe-ini MC ELC E006 of 2024)
- Mukurwe-ini MC ELC E006 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21
Relief refused
#Leave to file an appeal out of time in respect of the Ruling/Orders issued by the trial court on 9th May 2025
The explanation for the delay of over two months - that it took time to obtain the ruling - was not plausible, as the ruling was delivered in counsel's presence and uploaded to the Judiciary Case Tracking System within 24 hours; and no draft Memorandum of Appeal was annexed to demonstrate arguability.
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
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.
From the foregoing, the Court is not persuaded that the Applicant had a good and suficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Consequently, the application dated 10th July 2025 is found to have no merit, and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
While the delay of sixty-six days may not be considered strictly "inordinate," the lack of a plausible explanation for it is heavily weighed against the applicant. In the Court's view, a plausible explanation for the delay is essential.
It is the Court's opinion, therefore, that the reason given for delaying for more than two months in filing an appeal does not warrant the exercise of this Court's discretion to extend the time thereof.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states conflicting dates for the impugned ruling - paragraph 17 refers to '9th May 2023' while the rest of the judgment refers to 9th May 2025.
The judgment states the thirty days lapsed on '9th June 2024' although the ruling was delivered on 9th May 2025.
The judgment gives inconsistent figures for the period of delay - thirty-six days in one paragraph, sixty-six days in another, and 'two months' elsewhere.
The Respondent stated the Applicant took 60 days to present the application, while the judgment elsewhere computes the delay as thirty-six and sixty-six days.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agricultural Finance Corporation & another v Mwangi (Miscellaneous Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1944 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application under Notice of Motion dated 10th July 2025; intended appeal from Mukurwe-ini MC ELC E006 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1944/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.