John Chebii Kipkaliny v D Electricals Hardware and Spares Limited

3. He additionally stated that the registry filed a document on CTS on 25th March 2026 which was the ruling albeit uploaded on the wrong entry. He urged that this confusion justified the extension of time and further, that his advocate on record wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar on 30th March 2026, which was received on 1st April 2026, but no explanation has been tendered. 4. The application was not opposed. I note that the applicant has filed an affidavit of service sworn by Kiptoo Simin Kibet statin that he served the Notice of Motion on the respondent on 29th June 2026. 5. The applicant also filed written submissions dated 27th June 2026. He prays that the application be allowed, as he had satisfactorily explained the delay and demonstrated the existence of an arguable appeal. 6. Under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules, the Court may extend time for the doing of an act authorized under the Rules. The constituent elements for succeeding in an application of this nature have been well settled. In Fahir Mohammed vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others Civil Application NAI 332/04 (UR), the principles are summarized as follows: “ 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, (possibly) 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 the 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 factors: see Mutiso vs Mwangi, Civil Application No. Nai. 255 of 1997 (ur), Mwangi vs Kenya Airways Ltd [2003] KLR 486”. 7. I have duly considered the Notice of Motion, the supporting affidavit, the annexures thereto and the applicable law. It is common ground that the applicant was not furnished with the ruling, and he has demonstrated that he took reasonable steps to obtain a copy thereof. I am satisfied that this is a proper case for the exercise of this Court’s discretion, the delay having been sufficiently explained and not being inordinate. 8. Consequently, I hereby direct that the applicant shall file and serve the Notice of Appeal within 14 days from the date of this order. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. 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/2026/1455/eng@2026-07-17 2

page 2 of 2