Automarks Industries (K) Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Civil Application E534 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1204 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave Automarks Industries more time to challenge an earlier appeal decision, accepting its managing director's illness as a good enough excuse for the delay.
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 made out a case for extension of time to file a reference to the full Bench against the decision of the Single Judge dated 31st May 2024
- 2.Whether the reasons given for the delay in filing the reference are reasonable and sufficiently explained
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the motion
Key legal issues
#Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The Court has wide and unfettered discretion, to be exercised judiciously, taking into account the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
The court restated the settled guidelines from Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited and Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi. It found the applicant's explanation - the indisposition of its India-based Managing Director, evidenced by a doctor's report covering 20th May to 30th September 2024 - to be a plausible reason for the delay, and noted the respondent suffered no prejudice and that security of Kshs 4,000,000 remained deposited in court.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding an application under Rule 4 for extension of time, the Court has wide but judicious discretion, guided by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to apply in writing to the registrar for reference of the decision of the Single Judge made on 31st May 2024 to the full Bench
- 2.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the intended reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (decision of a Single Judge, M'Inoti JA)
- Application dated 10th November 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
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 now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
The Court has wide and unfettered discretion in deciding whether to extend time or not. However, in exercising its discretion, the Court should do so judiciously.
Accordingly, the applicant's motion dated 19th October 2024, is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed.
The costs of this motion shall abide the outcome of the intended reference.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent is not named anywhere in the judgment; the case title and party list cannot be completed from the text.
The judgment does not state the case/appeal number of the matter; only the motion date of 19th October 2024 identifies the application.
The applicant's application is described in one place as seeking extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal, while the current motion seeks reference of the Single Judge's dismissal of that application to the full Bench; the procedural chain is inferable but not fully spelt out.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Automarks Industries (K) Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Civil Application E534 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1204 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion on notice dated 19th October 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1204/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.