Saham Assurance Company (K) Limited v Nyandera & 2 others (Civil Application E496 of 2025) [2026] KECA 690 (KLR)

2. Under the provisions of rule 55 of this Court’s Rules, the only prayer that is within my jurisdiction as a single judge of this Court is prayer 2 seeking extension of time, which prayer is premised on rule 4 of this Court’s Rules. 3. The application is supported by two affidavits sworn on 11th August 2025, one by the applicant’s Legal Officer, Ms. Sarah Weru, and the other by its advocate on record, Mr. Rodgers Opiyo. The applicant avers that the judgment of this Court was delivered on 20th June 2025. In the said judgment, this Court declared that the applicant should settle the decretal sum of Kenya Shillings Two Million Six Hundred and Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Eight (Kshs. 2,602,978) due to the respondent, together with costs and interest thereon at court rates from 16th October 2021 until payment in full. 4. The applicant avers that under rule 41(2) of this Court’s Rules, it should have filed an application for certification within 30 days of the said judgment, that is by 21st July 2025. It sets out the reasons for the delay in filing the application in the affidavit of Rodgers Opiyo, attributing the delay to a medical emergency. Mr. Opiyo avers that he fell ill and was out of the office up to 30th July 2025, and he could therefore not prepare the documents necessary to file the application, but that he filed the application soon after returning to the office. He has annexed to his application a note from a Dr. Opondo indicating that he was diagnosed with peptic ulcers and required to be out of the office for some time. 5. The applicant filed submissions dated 14th September 2025 in which it urges the Court to exercise its discretion to extend time. It cites the decision in Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR with respect to the principles to be considered on an application for extension of time. 6. The application is opposed by an affidavit sworn by the 1st respondent on 26th January 2026 and submissions dated 26th January 2026. The 1st respondent avers that no sufficient, credible, or plausible explanation has been advanced to justify the delay in filing the application for certification as the counsel who was on record for the applicant during the hearing of the appeal was one Mr Isolio advocate and not Mr. Opiyo. It is the respondents’ case therefore that the averment that the delay was caused by the illness of counsel is untrue and misleading. 7. I have considered the application for extension of time and the averments and submissions in support or opposition thereto. As submitted by the applicant, under rule 41(2) of this Court’s Rules, an application for certification should have been lodged within 30 days of the judgment of this Court dated 20th June 2025, which would have been on or about 19th July 2025. There was thus a delay in filing the application, the present application for, inter alia, extension of time having been filed on 11th August 2025. 8. As noted earlier, an application for extension of time falls within the jurisdiction of a single judge of this Court, which is vested with the discretion under rule 4 to extend time if satisfied, on a consideration of settled factors, that such extension is merited. These factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted-see Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KESC 12 (KLR). 9. The judgment of this Court having been delivered on 20th June 2025, the application for certification ought to have been filed within 30 days from the said date. This application having been filed on 11th August 2025, there was a delay of 21 days. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/690/eng@2026-03-25 2

page 2 of 3

10. The applicant has attributed the delay to the illness of its advocate on record and has placed before the Court a report from a doctor to this effect. The respondents question the applicant’s averments, asserting that the applicant’s advocate before this Court in the appeal was different. Having considered the averments for the applicant and the documents before me, I am satisfied that the delay, which is not in any event inordinate, has been satisfactorily explained. Having so found, I need not consider the other factors under rule 4. 11. I accordingly allow the applicant’s prayer for extension of time. The application dated 11th August 2025 may be placed for hearing of the outstanding prayers before a full bench of this Court. 12. I make no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026. MUMBI NGUGI …………………………… 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/2026/690/eng@2026-03-25 3

page 3 of 3