Milka Wangari Njagi (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Late John Njagi Gitari) & another v Hon Samson Omwanza Ombati & 2 others

no prejudice would befall the respondent if the orders sought are granted; and it was in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. 5. The application favored no response from the respondents. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. In their written submissions dated 3rd November 2025, the applicants urged this Court to allow the application as prayed. 6. I have considered the application, the adavit in support and the annexures thereto, examined the written submissions and analyzed the law. The applicants seek for extension of time to le their notice of appeal out of time. Given the discretionary nature of this powers donated under rule 4 of this Court’s rules, certain principles have been enunciated by this Court in determining whether to allow or dismiss an application of this nature. In Paul Wanjohi Mathenge vs. Duncan Gichane Mathenge [2013] eKLR, the Court gave the following yardstick: “The discretion under Rule 4 is unfettered, but it has to be exercised judicially, not on whim, sympathy or caprice. I take note that in exercising my discretion I ought to be guided by consideration of the factors stated in previous decisions of this Court including, but not limited to, the period of delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice to the respondent and interested parties if the application is granted, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance.” 7. Is the application qualied? The applicants explained that they are dissatised with the ruling dated 25th September 2025 in ELC Cause No. E013 of 2025, striking out their Notice of Motion. Aggrieved by those ndings, they led their notice of appeal on 8th October 2025. However, the applicants’ counsel observed on 9th October that the said notice of appeal had not been signed. Unfortunately, they were outside the statutory timelines to le an executed one. 8. I nd that the applicants have satisfactorily explained the delay, which in this Court’s view does not amount to inordinate delay. The application was lodged less than a month after the impugned decision was delivered. I therefore see no reason why the applicants should not benet from the exercise of this Court’s discretion. Accordingly, I direct the applicants to le their notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of this order. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. M. GACHOKA C.Arb, FCIArb. ...................................... JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. Signed. DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2182/eng@2025-12-15 2

page 2 of 2