The Kenya National Higway Authority v Sbi International Holdings (kenya)

4. According to the applicant, the “ex-parte ruling” was issued against the law, as the applicant’s application to have the matter stayed pending referral to arbitration was still pending before the court. For this reason, the applicant avers that it has a good appeal with high chances of success. 5. The applicant filed submissions which were duly served on the respondent on 2nd July 2025. I note, however, that there was no response to the submissions. The affidavit of service on record shows that the notice of motion was served on the respondent along with the submissions the same day. The respondent did not file any response to the application, nor did it file submissions in response. The notice of motion is, therefore, not contested. 6. I, nonetheless, need to consider the application against the applicable law to see if it meets the threshold set for applications of this nature. 7. The law in this area is settled. See Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2005] eKLR (Civil Application No. Nai. 332 of 2004) where the Court held that; “ The exercise of this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 has followed a well-beaten path since the stricture of “sufficient reason” was removed by amendment in 1985. As it is unfettered, there is no limit to the number of factors the court would consider so long as they are relevant. The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possible) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the effect of delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance-are all relevant but not exhaustive factor.” See also Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd (2003) KRL 486. 8. As stated earlier, the delay was for about 6 weeks. It was stated that the ‘Ruling” was issued ex-parte on a mention date, and that the applicant’s application for stay of proceedings pending referral to arbitration was still pending before the High Court. All this is not controverted. 9. My conclusion is that the application is not frivolous, the delay involved was not inordinate and the same has been sufficiently explained. 10. Accordingly, I am persuaded that the extension of time sought is merited. I allow the application and order that the Notice of appeal dated 2nd May 2025 is deemed to have been filed within time. I order the notice be served on the respondent within 7 days from the date hereof. The record of appeal be served within 14 days of service of the notice of appeal. In default, these orders will stand vacated. I make no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026. W. KARANJA .............................. 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/2026/402/eng@2026-02-27 2

page 2 of 2