Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedKisumu ELRC No. E018 of 2024 (arising from)· [2025] KEELRC 2000 (KLR)

Nyakongo v Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) (Cause E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2000 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 July 2025
2,293 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu court refused to let a losing party appeal late because his hospitalization excuse was contradicted by his own medical records.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, who lost his suit against the respondent in Kisumu ELRC No. E018 of 2024 (judgment delivered on 4th March 2025), moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time. He attributed the failure to file a notice of appeal to indisposition and hospitalization following delivery of judgment. The respondent, through Phillip M. Kichana, opposed the application, contending that the medical evidence showed a pre-existing condition, no admission or incapacitation, that the applicant had visited counsel twice following up on payment, and that the decretal sum and costs had been paid on 11th June 2025. The court framed one issue: whether the application was merited. It reviewed the statutory framework (Sections 7 Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 79G and 95 Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rule 6 CPR, Rule 4 Court of Appeal Rules) and the settled principles on extension of time: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice. The court found the medical letter of 5th March 2025 contradicted the applicant's claim of hospitalization, showing outpatient treatment for pre-existing conditions, two weeks' bed rest, and no bar to giving instructions. It also expressed doubt over why the applicant sought extension from this court rather than the Court of Appeal, observing that the appropriate forum is the court with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant gave a sustainable justification for the delay in filing a notice of appeal

Holding

The application was dismissed because the alleged hospitalization was not demonstrated to be a bar to giving instructions; the medical letter showed a pre-existing outpatient condition, no admission, and no incapacitation

Reasoning

The court found the letter of 5th March 2025 contradicted the applicant's sworn claim of hospitalization, showing he attended JOOTRH as an outpatient for pre-existing fracture and hypertension, was recommended two weeks' bed rest, and went home. Bed rest did not preclude a phone call or a home visit by counsel to give instructions. The respondent had also been paid the decretal sum on 11th June 2025, weakening the applicant's case.

p. 5
02

Whether the High Court/ELRC is the proper forum to grant extension of time for an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal

Holding

The court observed that although the law appears to sanction the application, the appropriate court is the one with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the applicant could have invoked the Court of Appeal's own Rule 4 jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court reviewed Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6 CPR, noting they confer jurisdiction but are reticent on circumstances for exercise. It questioned why the applicant sought extension from this court when the Court of Appeal has similar powers under its Rules, and asked rhetorically whether such an extension would bind the Court of Appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The factors governing extension of time are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent, considered in the totality of the circumstances
  • The most appropriate court to determine whether or not to extend time for lodging an appeal is the court with jurisdiction to entertain such appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 21st May, 2025 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 79G, 95
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 50 Rule 6; Order 21 Rule 1; Order 50
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4 (also cited as Rules 2022)
  • Court of Appeal ActSection 7 (as cited in the application)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 7
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 48, 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (8)

  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    [2005] eKLR
  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1977] eKLR
  • Njuguna v Magichu & 7 Others
    [2003] KLR 507
  • Karny Zaharya & another v Shalom Levi
    Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2018
  • Imperial Bank (Ltd in Receivership) & another v Alnasir Popat & 18 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Abdul Azizi Ngoma v Mungai Mathayo
    [1976] KLR 61
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Hillary Kipruto & others v Dinah Jepkemboi & another
    [2024] KECA 607 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyakongo v Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) (Cause E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisumu ELRC No. E018 of 2024 (arising from). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2000/eng@2025-07-03

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