Herold R Fenwich & Associates v Kwale International Sugar Company Ltd (Civil Application E013 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1389 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1389 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION E013 OF 2026 LK KIMARU, JA JULY 13, 2026 BETWEEN HEROLD R FENWICH & ASSOCIATES ............................................. APPLICANT AND KWALE INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED ........ RESPONDENT (Being an application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (J.W. Mong’are, J) dated 1st December, 2025 in HCCOMMISC No. E1108 of 2024) RULING 1. The applicant was aggrieved by the Ruling delivered by the High court on 11th December, 2025 by which the said Court dismissed the applicant’s application which sought to set aside an arbitral award. The applicant filed notice of its intention to appeal against the said decision to this Court on the same day. However, the applicant failed to file the application for leave to appeal within the prescribed time, hence this application made pursuant to Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking the following order; “ That time for filing an application for leave to appeal against the Ruling of the High Court (Hon. J.W Mongare, J) dated 1st December, 2025 be extended by a period of fourteen (14) days or such other period as this Honourable Court deems just.” 2. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Bashir- ud-Deen Hassanali Juma Hajee and the grounds stated on the face of the application. In essence, the applicant states that it made an inadvertent and honest mistake in not seeking the leave of the Court within the stipulated period before lodging the notice of appeal. The applicant contends that the mistake is bona fide and therefore excusable. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1389/eng@2026-07-13 1
page 1 of 2
3. The respondent was served with the application and the hearing notice of today’s date by the Court. They neither filed a replying affidavit nor written submissions in opposition to the application. The application is therefore unopposed. 4. This Court has considered the application. This Court’s jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary. The applicant, however, must convince the Court that they are entitle to the order craved for for extension of time noting that the Court will take into consideration the period of delay, the reason for delay, whether the applicant has good grounds of appeal and finally whether the respondent will be prejudiced. The Court is also required to take into consideration the broader interests of justice (See Andrew K. Chemoringo & Paul K. Kibet [2018] KECA 701 (KLR). 5. In the present application, the applicant has satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay. The applicant’s advocate by inadvertence and honest mistake failed to seek leave of the High Court as required by the law before they lodged the notice of appeal. By the time they realized the mistake, 45 days had elapsed from the time the decision was rendered. The explanation given is excusable. The period of delay is not inordinate. The application is unopposed. It will be allowed. 6. The period in which the applicant is required to seek leave of the High Court to appeal to this Court is extended for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling. The High court shall deal with that application in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. L. KIMARU ........................ JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of original. Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1389/eng@2026-07-13 2
page 2 of 2