Omino v Precis Integrated Ltd (Civil Appeal E579 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7359 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7359 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL APPEAL E579 OF 2025 LP KASSAN, J MAY 28, 2026 BETWEEN DANIEL OMINO ..................................................................................... APPELLANT AND PRECIS INTEGRATED LIMITED .................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant raised a PO on the appeal for the reason that it was filed without leave of the Court upon expiry of the time to file Appeal. Upon realizing that this leave was not sought, the respondent filed an application seeking leave to file an appeal out of time among other prayers. I have read the submissions on record and wish to note the following; 2. This appeal was filed without the necessary leave. This therefore is not a matter in contest. The judgement was delivered or rather dated the 26th day of January 2024 and the memorandum of appeal filed on the 9th May 2024. 3. The Appellant offered some explanation on why leave was not sought. He said that he bumped upon the judgement dated the 26th day of January 2024 on the 21st day of March 2024 on the CTS and thereafter the file went missing. The Appellant said in submissions that he filed memorandum of appeal on the 9th day of April 2024, exactly 26 days later after the 13th March 2024 when the said judgement was uploaded in the CTS. 4. The fact is that the Appellant knew that the judgement was dated the 26th day of January 2024 and ought to have sought leave to file an Appeal out of time. He cannot be heard to say that there was no clarity as to when the judgement was delivered as the date was there, even in the CTS. The respondent despite being aware of this judgement on the 21st day of March 2024 did not seek leave to file this Appeal but instead he waited until the 9th day of May 2024, almost two months after the said knowledge. There is no reason why leave was not sought before filing this Appeal. The Appellant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7359/eng@2026-05-28 1
page 1 of 2
cannot set time limit for filing an Appeal as it is anchored in law or rather it cannot be from the time he learnt of the Judgement. If this Court was to go this way, then it would be opening a Pandora’s box for litigants to set the time they want to check on the CTS and ignore the date of the Judgement before filing appeals on time based on when they learnt about the judgement. 5. Cardinal rules and Procedures cannot be overlooked to give effect to article 159 of the Constitution because the consequence would have far reaching ramifications that will thwart Court processes and predictability. Litigation must come to an end. The Respondent deliberately communicated to the Appellant about the said dated judgement but still the Appellant chose not comply with the law in filing Appeal. This Court has jurisdiction to extend time of filing appeal but it must balance rights of appeal and flagrant breach of procedure which is potentially damaging to litigation. It is noteworthy that the leave to Appeal out of time was sought after a PO was raised. It is an attempt to cure a fundamental breach and can only be entertained where there are exceptional circumstances which I do not find here. The fact that the Court file went missing is not sufficient ground to file an appeal without leave. The fact that this appeal was indeed filed did not require the Court file or proceedings to include leave to file appeal out of time because the judgement date was there and time had lapsed. 6. The conclusion therefore is that this Court finds that there are no exceptional circumstances for the failure to file leave to appeal an appeal out of time. The effect of overlooking rules and procedures far more outweigh invocation of the effects of article 159 of the constitution in order to maintain order, faithfulness of procedures and right to expeditious hearing which are also fundamental. This being the case, the Court will not proceed to determine the merit of the Appeal which becomes a casualty of fatal procedural error. 7. The conclusion of the above is that the PO is upheld. The Appellant shall pay costs. DATED DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND SIGNED ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026 L. P. KASSAN JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7359/eng@2026-05-28 2
page 2 of 2