IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU (CORAM: MURUNGI B. KAIRARIA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E108 OF 2026 BETWEEN ALEX KIPNGENO A KOECH…………………………....1ST APPLICANT NICKEY KIPTOO RONOH………………………………..2nd APPLICANT AND PRISCILLAR CHEPKEMOI MUTAI......................RESPONDENT RULING 1. Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules pursuant to which the application dated 13th July, 2026 is brought grants a single judge of this court the jurisdiction and power to grant an order to extend time limited by the Rules or by a decision of the Court or a superior court, for doing any act authorized or required by the Rules on such terms as may be just. But the applicant has filed an omnibus application prayer d of which seeks stay of execution of the judgement delivered by J.K Sergon J on 26th February, 2026 in Kericho HCCA/E014 of 2024. I have no jurisdiction to entertain that prayer as it sounds under Rule 5(2) (b) a matter that can only be heard and determined a full bench of the Court. It is not properly before me. Page 1 of 5
page 1 of 9
2. The Applicant has also sought leave for the firm of Maina Munyua & Co. Advocates to come on record in place of Gacathi & Co. Advocates, who acted for the Applicants in the proceedings before the High Court. That prayer (b) in the notice of motion) is in my view quite unnecessary in the circumstance of this case where the said firm of advocates have not previously represented the Applicants before the Court of Appeal. Indeed the Applicants principal explanation proffered for the delay in filing their notice of appeal and record of appeal is that there was breakdown of client advocate relationship with their former advocate’s firm as a result of which he did not notify them that judgement had been delivered by the superior court. In those circumstances the Applicants were legally entitled to appoint an advocate of their choice to institute any appeal on their behalf post judgement of the superior court without first seeking leave of the Court for the new advocates to come on record. 3. That leaves only prayer (c) for my consideration. The Applicants seek extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal and a record of appeal in respect of an intended appeal against the decision of High Court made on Page 2 of 5
page 2 of 9
26th February, 2026 with which they are dissatisfied. Consistent with Rule 77 and 84 of the Page 3 of 5
page 3 of 9
Court of Appeal Rules, the Applicants ought to have lodged the notice of appeal within 14 days after delivery of judgement i.e. on or before 11th March, 2026 and the record of appeal within 60 days after lodging the notice of appeal. They did not do so but still desire to appeal the decision of the superior court. They cannot proceed on that course unless the time for filing the notice of appeal and the record of appeal is extended in accordance with Rule 4. 4. In the grounds and affidavit in support of the application sworn by Nickey Kiptoo Ronoh on 13 th July, 2026, the applicants say that they failed to approach the Court within the stipulated timelines due to a communication breakdown with the firm of M/S Gacathi & Co Advocates from 15 th January 2026, attributed to difficulties in meeting counsel’s legal fees. They aver that due to those difficulties their previous advocates did not inform them of the delivery of the judgement and they only got to know that judgement had been delivered undisclosed advocate date. who through the Respondent They then instructed their requested for certified copies on an current of the proceedings and judgement by letter dated 10th July, 2026 Page 4 of 5
page 4 of 9
[NKRII]. Page 5 of 5
page 5 of 9
5. In response to the application Priscillah Chepkemoi [the Respondent] filed a replying affidavit sworn on 4 th September, 2026 and written submissions of even date. She asserts that the application is not made in good faith; that she was with Alex Kipnge’no Koech together with his advocate in court when judgement was delivered on 26 th February, 2026. She is therefore surprised when the Applicants say they did not know about the judgement five months after delivery. That the Applicants assertion that they were let down by their advocates cannot be true because he was present when the judgement was delivered. In any event she added that it was the Applicants responsibility to pay their advocates fees and they ought to have been vigilant if indeed they knew that the relationship with their advocate had broken down on 15th January, 2026 before delivery of judgment as alleged in the supporting affidavit. They should have been more proactive if at all they knew that they were on their own. That the application has no merits and should not be allowed. 6. I have considered the grounds and the affidavit in support thereof. I have also considered the replying affidavit filed in Page 6 of 5
page 6 of 9
opposition to the application. I note that the Applicants have Page 7 of 5
page 7 of 9
not denied the Respondent’s averment that Alex Kipnge’no Koech together with their former advocate were present in court on 26th February, 2026, when the High Court delivered the judgement intended to be appealed. 7. In view of this, I am not persuaded that the reason given by the applicants for the delay is either plausible or reasonable. What the Applicants have attempted to do is to blame their former advocate without justifiable cause. I find that the delay of close to five months is inordinate and has not been satisfactorily explained. The Applicants have instead demonstrated a singular lack of diligence and candor. They are not worthy of the exercise of my discretion to extend time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court. 8. Accordingly, I find no merits in the application dated 13 th July 2026 and dismiss it with costs to the Respondent. Dated and delivered September,2026. at Nakuru this MURUNGI B. KAIRARIA …………………………….. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a True copy of the original Signed Page 8 of 5 25 th day of
page 8 of 9
DEPUTY REGISTRAR Page 9 of 5
page 9 of 9