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 AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1416 (KLR)

Paul Muriuki M’njara & 1 other v Harriet Muthoni

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 2025
SKS. Ole Kantai
547 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 late filing of a supplementary appeal record because delays were explained by a certificate of delay and no prejudice to the other side.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a motion on notice under rules 88 and 92(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Paul Muriuki M'Njara and Polly Nkirote sought leave to file a supplementary record of appeal following a judgment of the High Court at Chuka (Lucy Gitari, J.) delivered on 23rd February 2024. They explained that when they filed their appeal and record of appeal on 29th October 2024, typed proceedings had not been supplied despite their having applied for them; the typed proceedings and a certificate of delay dated 9th March 2024 had since been availed, and they prayed that the draft supplementary record be deemed duly filed, contending the respondent would suffer no prejudice. In a ruling delivered at Nyeri on 31st July 2025, S. Ole Kantai, JA applied the well-established Fakir Mohamed vs. Joseph Mugambi principles governing extension-of-time applications, recalling the relevant factors: the period of and reason for delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, prejudice to the respondent, the effect on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the parties' resources and public importance. Satisfied that a certificate of delay had been issued and typed proceedings had since been supplied, the learned Judge held the applicants deserving of the discretionary relief. The Motion was allowed, the supplementary record of appeal was deemed duly filed, and costs of the Motion were reserved to the appeal. This is an interlocutory single-judge ruling, not a decision on the merits of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants deserved an exercise of discretion in their favour to file a supplementary record of appeal

Holding

The court, satisfied by the certificate of delay and the fact that typed proceedings had since been supplied, allowed the application and deemed the supplementary record duly filed.

Reasoning

The court applied the settled Fakir Mohamed principles for extension-of-time applications, which treat the length of and reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and other relevant factors as guiding an unfettered discretion. Judgment had been delivered on 23rd February 2024; a certificate of delay had been issued on 9th March 2024; and proceedings had since been availed. No prejudice to the respondent was shown. The applicants were therefore found deserving of the discretionary relief sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The Motion is allowed
    2. 2.The supplementary record of appeal is deemed as duly filed
    3. 3.Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal
    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Chuka
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Rules 88 and 92(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules and all enabling provisions of law

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Paul Muriuki M’njara & 1 other v Harriet Muthoni", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1416/eng@2025-07-31

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