Indirajet Vaghela T/A Shiv Bookshop v Raihan Amirali Kassam

2. The respondent has opposed the application in a replying affidavit he swore on 27th April 2026, and written submissions of even date filed by his advocates on record, Kabuthi Kamau & Associates Advocates. His salient arguments are that the judgment in Bungoma ELC Appeal No. 20 of 2023 was delivered on October 11, 2024 and the delay in filing the instant application in March 2026, approximately 18 months later, is inordinate and inexcusable; the applicant engaged in "forum shopping" by initiating multiple, parallel proceedings which the respondent detailed, rather than in filing a timely appeal; and he will suffer grave prejudice if the applicant's motion is granted, as he has been unable to realize the fruits of the judgment. 3. The principles that apply to an application for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules of 2022 have been the subject of many decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court of Kenya. In summary, this Court confirmed in the case of Leo Sila Mutiso vs Rose Hellen Wangare Mwangi (1999) 2 EA 231, that the decision whether or not to extend time for appealing is essentially discretionary, taking into account the length of delay and reason for the delay. 4. In the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Ruling – KAK Civil Application No E025 of 2026 Page 2 of 4

page 2 of 6

IEBC & 7 Others, Supreme Court of Kenya Application (supra), the Supreme Court set Ruling – KAK Civil Application No E025 of 2026 Page 3 of 4

page 3 of 6

down the underlying principles that a Court should consider in exercising its discretion as being: " i. Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; ii. A party who seeks an extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; iii. Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-tocase basis; iv. Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court; v. Whether the respondents will suffer any prejudice if the extension is granted; vi. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and vii. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time." 5. Upon perusal of the application no reasons for the delay in filing a Notice of Appeal are given, save for the applicant stating that the delay in filing the appeal is excusable, justifiable, explicable and/or inordinate. No basis or evidence is however provided to support this statement. It is also notable that the applicant did not file any submissions on the prayer for the extension for Ruling – KAK Civil Application No E025 of 2026 Page 4 of 4

page 4 of 6

time to file a Notice of Appeal. Ruling – KAK Civil Application No E025 of 2026 Page 5 of 4

page 5 of 6

6. I am therefore not persuaded that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the applicant for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal and the instant application for leave, and the delay of 18 months in filing the instant application was inordinate in the circumstances. Consequently, I decline to grant the prayer for leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time. The result is that the said prayer in the application dated 30th March 2026 is dismissed, with costs to the respondent. 7. Orders accordingly. Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 17th day of July, 2026. P. NYAMWEYA. …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR Ruling – KAK Civil Application No E025 of 2026 Page 6 of 4

page 6 of 6