Onyango v Ambe (Civil Application E359 of 2024) [2025] KECA 587 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant offered a vague, unexplained delay and blamed his lawyers without proper evidence.
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 placed sufficient material before the single Judge to warrant extension of time to file a notice of appeal
Key legal issues
#What an applicant for extension of time must place before a single Judge
The applicant must provide material supporting the exercise of discretion, covering the length of and reasons for the delay, prospects of success and prejudice to the respondent
The discretion is free but not capricious. The judge weighs the length of delay, the explanation offered, the likelihood of the appeal succeeding and prejudice to the respondent. An applicant's own averment that his advocates 'inadvertently failed' to pay for the notice is hearsay; the advocate should have sworn the affidavit. A notice of appeal is a simple document, so such negligence is difficult to excuse.
Whether the applicant's explanation sufficed
It did not; the delay of over a month was long and unexplained and the application was dismissed with costs
The applicant's affidavit was oddly in second-person, annexed no draft notice of appeal, and disclosed neither the source of the information nor personal knowledge. The respondent's unchallenged opposition was unanswerable. The delay from expiry of the prescribed time was, on its face, long and unexplained.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules must place before the single Judge material upon which the discretion may be favourably exercised; the discretion considers the length of delay, its explanation, the prospects of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent, and cannot rest on whim or caprice
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated 11th July 2024 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time by a single Judge)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the High Court judgment of 24th May 2024
The delay was long and unexplained and the applicant's affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay rather than matter he could personally prove
Costs
Dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)
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.
A party who seeks extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is obligated to place before a single Judge of this Court some material on the basis which discretion may be exercised favourably.
The afidavit does not contain matter he can personally prove.
I think, with respect, it is not enough for a party to say “Oh, my lawyers forgot to pay for and or file the notice of appeal.”
Being of that mind, I find this motion to be unmeritorious and dismiss it with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment excerpt begins mid-text and does not set out the case number or the full style of cause
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Ambe (Civil Application E359 of 2024) [2025] KECA 587 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (motion dated 11th July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/587/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.