Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNotice of Motion dated 20th December, 2024

Muthee v Consolidated Bank of Kenya (Civil Application E122 of 2024) [2025] KECA 861 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
15 May 2025
1,606 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal granted extra time to file an appeal record after a fire destroyed the applicant's home, prioritising a fair hearing over strict deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application before the Court of Appeal at Nakuru under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking an extension of time to file the record of appeal against a High Court at Kericho judgment (Karanja, J, delivered 2nd May 2024) in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022. The applicant had lodged a timely Notice of Appeal and served a letter bespeaking proceedings, but the preparation of the record was frustrated when his house and belongings were destroyed by fire, leading to depression and financial strain. The application was unopposed. The court, per Odunga, JA, restated the established Rule 4 principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari Mwangi and Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi: the length and reasons for the delay, whether the appeal is frivolous, and prejudice to the respondent, with the list expressly non-exhaustive and subject to the overriding objective in Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Relying on Crispinus Makokha Maloba v Okinyo Nawiri, the court held that illness such as depression can ground an extension, and applying Chemwolo v Kubende, held that defaults curable by costs should not defeat a hearing on the merits absent fraud or intention to overreach. The court found the reason for delay justifiable and allowed the motion, extending time by 30 days, with no order as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file the record of appeal
  2. 2.Whether the delay of approximately two months was inordinate and excusable
  3. 3.Whether the respondent would be unduly prejudiced if the extension were granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

The discretion is unfettered but must be exercised on reasons, applying the settled principles.

Reasoning

The court restated the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari Mwangi and Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi, noting the list of factors is not exhaustive. The applicant's house burning down and resulting depression and financial strain constituted a justifiable reason for the two-month delay, and the unopposed application disclosed no prejudice to the respondent.

p. 2
02

Inordinate delay

Holding

The delay of about two months, explained by the fire tragedy, was not inordinate.

Reasoning

Relying on Utalii Transport v NIC Bank, the court noted that what amounts to inordinate delay depends on the circumstances of each case. The time covered by the Certificate of Delay is excluded, leaving only two months, and the explanation was accepted as justifiable.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The factors for extension of time under Rule 4 are the length and reason for delay, whether the appeal is frivolous, and prejudice to the respondent; the list is not exhaustive.
  • Absent fraud or intention to overreach, a default curable by costs should not nullify proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time for filing the record of appeal by a period of 30 days
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court
Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

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.

I accordingly allow the Notice of Motion dated 20th December, 2024, and extend the time for filing the record of appeal with a period of 30 days.
p. 4Final orders
No order as to costs
p. 4Costs
the Court should in so far as it may be reasonable prefer, in the wider interest of justice, to have a case decided on its merits
p. 3Substantive justice over procedure

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Garbled word in judgment text (OCR/print artifact)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muthee v Consolidated Bank of Kenya (Civil Application E122 of 2024) [2025] KECA 861 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/861/eng@2025-05-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.