Mombasa County Government v Kenya Ferry Services & 2 others
The bottom line
#County government denied extension of time for failing to explain two-month delay after receiving typed proceedings.
What this practically means
#The County Government of Mombasa wanted more time to appeal a court decision about ferry revenue control. The Supreme Court refused because the county did not properly explain why it waited two months after getting the typed court records. The court also noted the county could have filed its appeal with the documents it already had, then asked for permission to add more later. The application was dismissed with costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court should extend time for the Applicant to file its appeal? Has the Applicant laid a satisfactory basis to warrant this Court to extend time to file the appeal?
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant laid a satisfactory basis for extension of time to file an appeal.
The applicant did not lay a satisfactory basis; the application was disallowed.
The Court applied the principles from the Nick Salat Case. It noted that the applicant did not annex a certificate of delay, typed proceedings, or decree to confirm the dates of receipt. Even assuming those dates were correct, there was an unexplained two-month delay between receipt of the proceedings and filing the application. The explanation of change of advocates was unsupported by a notice of change or exact dates. The applicant also failed to file the appeal with available documents within time, as permitted by Rule 33(6).
Legal principles established
#- An applicant must fully explain every part of the delay period to the court.
- Waiting for typed proceedings is not automatically a valid excuse for delay; each case is judged on its own facts.
- Applicants should file an appeal with available documents within the deadline, then seek leave to add supplementary records later.
- Failure to provide a certificate of delay or other supporting documents weakens an extension application.
- A change of advocates must be supported by a formal notice and exact dates to explain delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th of September, 2018 be and is hereby disallowed.
- 2.The Applicant shall bear the costs of the Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Mombasa
- Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file the petition of appeal
The applicant did not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of two months upon receipt of typed proceedings, and did not annex the petition of appeal.
Admission of the annexed petition of appeal as properly on record
No petition was annexed to the application.
Costs
The Applicant shall bear the costs of the Respondents.
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.
The Notice of Motion dated 5th of September, 2018 be and is hereby disallowed.
The Applicant shall bear the costs of the Respondents.
Consequently, it is our finding that the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay of two months upon receipt of the typed proceedings.
a ground of delay of getting typed proceedings is not a prima facie panacea for a case of delay whenever it is pleaded. Each case has to be determined on its own merit and all relevant circumstances considered.
This therefore means that the Applicant ought to have filed the Appeal and the record with the documents that were available to demonstrate some diligence, then later seek leave of this Court to file the supplementary record out of time.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#File appeals with available documents
When time is tight, file the appeal and record using whatever documents you have. Then apply under Rule 33(6) to add supplementary records later. Always obtain and attach a certificate of delay from the lower court to prove when proceedings were received.
Don't rely on slow court records
If your business is involved in litigation, instruct your lawyers to file appeals promptly even if some documents are missing. Waiting for typed proceedings is not a guaranteed excuse. Delays can cost you the right to appeal, as happened to the county government here.
Explain every delay to the court
If you need more time to appeal, you must account for every day of the delay. Simply saying you were waiting for court records or changing lawyers is not enough. Provide dates, supporting documents, and show you acted diligently.
Frequently asked questions
#What is extension of time in Kenyan courts?+
Extension of time is a court order allowing someone to file an appeal or other legal document after the normal deadline has passed. You must apply to the court and give a good reason for the delay.
Can I get extension of time because I am waiting for typed proceedings in Kenya?+
Not automatically. The court will examine your specific situation. You must show you acted diligently, such as filing the appeal with available documents first. Waiting for typed proceedings alone is not a guaranteed excuse.
What happens if I change advocates during an appeal in Kenya?+
You must file a formal notice of change of advocates with the court. If the change causes delay, you need to explain the exact dates and reasons. Without proper documentation, the court may reject your extension application.
How do I apply for extension of time in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
File a Notice of Motion explaining the delay, attach a certificate of delay from the lower court, and show you acted diligently. The court expects you to file the appeal with available documents within the deadline and later seek leave to add more.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wanonyi v Mauko; Mahava (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 78 of 2005) [2025] KEELC 4958 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4958 (KLR)13 Jun 2025
- Kirochi (Suing as legal representative of Kemunto Kirochi - Deceased) v Nyachani & 2 others (Civil Application E070 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1462 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1462 (KLR)25 Oct 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mombasa County Government v Kenya Ferry Services & 2 others", Case Analysis (2019). Application 29 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/50/eng@2019-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.