Okomba v Bachulal Popatlal Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2064 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed an unemployed worker to appeal three months late, accepting financial hardship as a valid reason for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of about three months in filing the appeal was prolonged or inordinate
The delay of three months was neither prolonged nor inordinate.
The judgment was delivered on 22nd January 2025 and the application filed on 20th May 2025, a delay of about three months. Guided by the Court of Appeal in Omar Shurie, the court found the period short enough to fall within its discretionary favour, provided the reason was plausible.
Whether the applicant's financial constraints constituted a plausible reason for the delay
The explanation of financial inability to raise filing fees was plausible.
The applicant deposed she was unemployed, the sole breadwinner, and could not raise legal fees on time. Though she provided no documentary evidence of her financial position, the court took judicial notice that legal services are expensive and unemployed persons may struggle to access justice.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The appeal raising overtime, leave days, house allowance and Section 90 of the Employment Act issues was arguable.
The applicant challenged the dismissal of claims for overtime, leave days and house allowance and the trial court's application of Section 90 of the Employment Act. Arguability requires only a non-frivolous issue requiring further consideration, not a probability of success.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if leave were granted
No particular prejudice was pleaded or demonstrated by the respondent.
The respondent did not plead that the three-month delay had prejudiced it or would prejudice it in any particular manner if leave was granted; any prejudice could be compensated in costs.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is a discretionary, equitable remedy available only to a deserving party and must be exercised judiciously.
- Financial hardship may constitute a plausible and sufficient explanation for delay where the delay is neither prolonged nor inordinate.
- Arguability of an appeal does not require prospects of success, only that the appeal is not frivolous.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant shall file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal within 7 days
- 2.The applicant to request for typed and certified copies of the proceedings and judgment in MCELRC No. E155 of 2024 and file and serve the Record of Appeal within sixty days
- 3.Mention on 18th September, 2025 to confirm compliance
- 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
- MCELRC No. E155 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 18 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024; Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okomba v Bachulal Popatlal Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E046 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 12th May, 2025 (arising from MCELRC No. E155 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2064/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.