Murimi v Kabiru & 2 others (Both as the Chairman and Treasurer of Kagaki Irrigation Water Self Help Group) (Civil Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KECA 564 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted an appellant extra time to file his appeal because delays in preparing court records were not his fault.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has given a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the memorandum and record of appeal
- 2.Whether the delay is inordinate or unreasonable
- 3.Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal and should be granted an extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the memorandum and record of appeal was inordinate and reasonably explained
The real delay runs only from 2nd October 2024 when the proceedings were ready for collection; the delay of about three months, with the December court vacation factored in, is neither inordinate nor unreasonable and the explanation is acceptable.
The applicant paid for proceedings on 21st May 2024 and obtained a certificate of delay showing preparation took until 2nd October 2024. The physical court file was unavailable until 18th June 2024. These registry-related delays are circumstances beyond the litigant's control, so time is counted only from when the proceedings were ready.
Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for extension of time
The applicant satisfied the settled requirements and the application dated 22nd January 2025 was allowed with 30 days to file and 14 days to serve.
Applying the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso, Salat and Chemaringo, the court found a reasonable explanation for the delay, that the delay was not inordinate, and was satisfied the requirements were met, so it exercised its unfettered discretion in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- The Court's discretion to extend time is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously on settled principles: the applicant must explain the delay, show it is not inordinate, and demonstrate an arguable appeal.
- Delay attributable to the registry's inability to prepare certified proceedings is a circumstance beyond the applicant's control and does not count against the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted for filing the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal
- 2.Applicant granted thirty (30) days to file the memorandum and record of appeal
- 3.Applicant granted fourteen (14) days from the date of filing to serve the respondents
- 4.Costs of the application to be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent/appellate jurisdiction to extend time)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is settled law by a plethora of cases of this Court and the Supreme Court that the Court’s discretion in an application for extension of time to file an appeal or memorandum and record of appeal is unfettered so long as they are exercised judiciously and on the settled principles that guide such a determination.
The applicant must satisfy that there exists reasonable explanation for the delay; that the delay is not unreasonable or inordinate and that he has an arguable appeal.
He could not have served a record that did not exist.
I am satisfied that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for consideration of this application in her favour. Accordingly, I allow the applicant’s application dated 22nd January, 2025, grant the applicant thirty (30) days to file the memorandum and record of appeal, and 14 days from date of filing to serve the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling twice refers to the applicant in the feminine ('in her favour') although the applicant, Silvans Kinyua Murimi, is elsewhere described as 'he', e.g. 'enable the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour'.
The case number and the names of the respondents are not stated in the ruling text, making full case identification impossible from this document alone.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murimi v Kabiru & 2 others (Both as the Chairman and Treasurer of Kagaki Irrigation Water Self Help Group) (Civil Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KECA 564 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 22nd January 2025, rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/564/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.