Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissednot stated in the extract provided· [2025] KEELRC 3724 (KLR)

Global Freight Logistics Limited v Agutu & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E212 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3724 (KLR)

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

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to extend time for a late appeal, ruling that unexplained delay and neglect must carry consequences.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the Court by application dated 20th January 2025 seeking enlargement of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal and that the Memorandum already filed be deemed properly on record, with a request for priority hearing ahead of a mention fixed for 18th February 2025. The Respondent opposed, showing that the ruling appealed against was delivered on 4th July 2023, that the Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 24th October 2023 - some three months and twenty days later - without leave, in breach of the thirty-day period in section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 17(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The Respondent further argued that blaming the previous advocate was implausible, since the change of advocate occurred around 9th October 2023 and no steps were taken until January 2025 in reaction to the Respondent's application of 2nd April 2024; that no conditional deposit of the decretal sum ordered for stay had been made; and that the issues raised had already been determined and dismissed by the trial court on 4th July 2023. Parties filed written submissions. The Court found the Respondent had established dalliance and massive neglect by the Applicant, no arguable appeal with chances of success was demonstrated, and the application was bedevilled by frivolity and vexation, the Applicant seeking only to excuse misconduct by blaming imaginary factors. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file a Memorandum of Appeal

Holding

The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to explain the enormous delay and did not demonstrate an arguable appeal

Reasoning

The ruling appealed against was delivered on 4th July 2023 and the Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 24th October 2023, beyond the thirty-day period under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 17(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, with no leave sought. No explanation for the further delay until January 2025 was satisfactory; blaming the previous advocate was implausible since the same advocate made the application. The Court found frivolity, vexation and misconduct, holding the Applicant should meet the price of their indolence.

p. 2
02

Blaming previous advocate for delay

Holding

The excuse was rejected as implausible because the change of advocate occurred in October 2023 yet no action was taken until January 2025, and the same advocate made the application

Reasoning

The Respondent showed that the change of advocate occurred around 9th October 2023 but no steps were taken until January 2025, in reaction to the Respondent's application of 2nd April 2024. The Court accepted that the same advocate who handled the matter made this application and was therefore to blame for the delay, finding the Applicant interested only in excusing their misconduct by blaming extraneous and imaginary factors.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Indolence and unexplained inordinate delay in filing an appeal out of time should not be rewarded, and an applicant for extension of time must demonstrate an arguable appeal with chances of success

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20th January 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
On appeal from
trial court (lower court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent power to enlarge time under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 17(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Global Freight Logistics Limited v Agutu & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E212 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3724 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3724/eng@2025-12-09

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