Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCourt of Appeal Rules rule 4 Motion dated 4th March, 2025 (application for extension of time)

Karithi v Karumo Technical Training Institute (Civil Application E027 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1260 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
11 July 2025
SKS. Ole Kantai
516 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a self-represented worker more time to appeal his dismissed employment case, deciding his delay was understandable and his appeal had real prospects.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (S. Ole Kantai, JA) on an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules by Mithika George Karithi seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of Onesmus N. Makau, J. in Meru ELRC No. E027 of 2021, an employment dispute in which the applicant's suit was dismissed on 9th February 2024. The applicant, who acted in person, filed a review application that was dismissed on 20th December 2024, by which time the period for appealing had elapsed; the present application was dated 4th March 2025. The court applied the well-established principles in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2 EA 231: the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent. There was no replying affidavit or submissions from the respondent. The court found the delay not inordinate, observed that the applicant was acting in person, considered that the draft Memorandum of Appeal raised six reasonable grounds of appeal, and exercised its discretion in the applicant's favour. The Motion was allowed and the applicant was directed to file the appeal within twenty-one days, with no order as to costs. The ruling does not disturb the ELRC judgment; it merely opens the door to an appeal, so the prior decision is treated as not affected at this stage.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the judgment in Meru ELRC No. E027 of 2021 delivered on 9th February, 2024, having regard to the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to extend time for filing an appeal where the applicant, acting in person, pursued a review after judgment

Holding

Extension of time granted; delay not inordinate and the draft memorandum raised reasonable grounds of appeal

Reasoning

The suit was dismissed on 9th February 2024 and the applicant's review application was dismissed on 20th December 2024, by which time the appeal period had elapsed. The application was dated 4th March 2025. Applying the Mutiso principles, the court found no inordinate delay, noted that the applicant was acting in person, considered the draft memorandum of appeal to raise reasonable grounds, and found no prejudice weighed against granting leave. The discretion was exercised in the applicant's favour.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In an extension-of-time application the court considers 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 decision is discretionary.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave to appeal out of time granted
  2. 2.Applicant to file appeal within twenty one (21) days of 11th July, 2025
  3. 3.No order on costs

The bench

#

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

SK
majority

Wrote the judgment

null

null
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Meru ELRC No. E027 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (leave to appeal out of 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.

first, the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay, thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.
p. 2Principles for extension of time to appeal
I allow the Motion. Let the applicant file appeal within twenty one (21) days of today. I make no order on costs.
p. 2Final orders and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Respondent not named in the application or ruling; judgment refers only to 'the respondent'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karithi v Karumo Technical Training Institute (Civil Application E027 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1260 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Court of Appeal Rules rule 4 Motion dated 4th March, 2025 (application for extension of time). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1260/eng@2025-07-11

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