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 AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated 29th November 2024· [2025] KECA 1239 (KLR)

Wilson Kimutai Langat v Sarah Kerubo Langat

Court of Appeal
11 July 2025
1,474 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 refused to rescue a late appeal, confirming you must file a notice of appeal on time — typed proceedings or not.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru (Korir, JA) on a notice of motion dated 29th November 2024 in which Wilson Kimutai Langat sought leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of the High Court in Kapsabet HCCC No. E002 of 2024, delivered on 10th June 2024. The applicant filed a notice of appeal dated 22nd July 2024 - about a month out of time - and attributed the delay to the late availing of typed proceedings. The respondent, Sarah Kerubo Langat, opposed, contending there was no valid notice of appeal and that she had already executed the decree. The Court, guided by the Supreme Court's principles in Salat v IEBC, framed the issues as whether the delay was satisfactorily explained and whether the respondent would be prejudiced. It observed that although the motion was framed as an extension-of-time application, it was in substance one to regularize a notice of appeal filed outside the prescribed period. Applying University of Eldoret v Sitienei and Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, the Court held that an appellant need not secure typed proceedings before filing a notice of appeal, so the explanation was unsatisfactory. Following Kathuri v Munyoki, it further held that an extension-of-time application cannot cure the absence of a valid notice of appeal. The motion was dismissed with costs to the respondent. No decision below was disturbed; the application was interlocutory in nature.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of approximately 5 months in filing the Notice of Appeal was satisfactorily explained

Holding

The explanation that typed proceedings were not availed in time is unsatisfactory because Rule 77 imposes no obligation to secure typed proceedings before filing a Notice of Appeal.

Reasoning

The Court applied Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 and the Supreme Court's dictum in University of Eldoret v Sitienei that filing a Notice of Appeal is not conditioned on any occurrence or precondition. Since the notice signifies intention to appeal, delay in obtaining typed proceedings cannot justify late filing. The applicant also failed to act equitably as required by Salat.

p. 3
02

Whether an application for extension of time can regularize a Notice of Appeal filed outside the prescribed time

Holding

No. Without a valid notice of appeal on record, an application to enlarge time to file a record or memorandum of appeal cannot be entertained.

Reasoning

The Court noted that although the motion was couched as an extension-of-time application, its 2nd and 3rd orders sought regularization of an invalid Notice of Appeal. Following Kathuri v Munyoki, an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal does not itself substitute for the requirement to file a notice of appeal within time or with leave. There was thus no proper notice upon which the application could be based.

p. 3
03

Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if time were enlarged

Holding

Not squarely determined, as the application failed on the antecedent grounds of unsatisfactory explanation and lack of a valid notice of appeal.

Reasoning

The respondent deposed that she had executed the High Court judgment and would be prejudiced by continued delay. However, the Court dismissed the application primarily because the delay was unexplained and no valid notice of appeal existed, rendering the prejudice inquiry unnecessary.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellant need not obtain typed proceedings before filing a Notice of Appeal; unavailability of proceedings is not a satisfactory reason for delay in filing the notice.
  • An application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal does not excuse the absence of a valid notice of appeal on record.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 29th November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court
Kapsabet HCCC No. E002 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (inherent discretion to extend time; Rule 77 cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wilson Kimutai Langat v Sarah Kerubo Langat", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 29th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1239/eng@2025-07-11

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