Nalianya v Vincent (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1448 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a litigant to file an appeal 25 days late, blaming his lawyer's failure to communicate the judgment.
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 should be granted leave to lodge a notice of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of about 25 days in lodging the notice of appeal was inordinate and sufficiently explained
- 3.Whether the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice if the extension was granted
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether a 25-day delay in lodging a notice of appeal is inordinate
A delay of about 25 days was held not to be inordinate
The court computed the delay between delivery of judgment on 14th November 2024 and filing of the application on 18th December 2024 as approximately 25 days and found that such a delay, by any stretch of imagination, could not be termed inordinate.
Whether counsel's failure to communicate judgment constitutes a reasonable explanation for delay
Counsel's failure to communicate the judgment and seek further instructions was accepted as a plausible and excusable reason for the delay
The court found the applicant's narration uncontroverted; the mere fact that judgment was delivered in the presence of the applicant's advocate was not a sufficient rebuttal. The reason was held to be unforeseeable, excusable and plausible.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice
No substantial prejudice was found; the respondent's old age and loss of enjoyment of judgment were the usual pitfalls of litigation
The court held that the applicant has an undoubted right of appeal, that the prejudices alluded to by the respondent are the usual pitfalls of litigation, and that on the other hand the applicant faces real and imminent danger of eviction from the suit property.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The court declined to say much, only stating that the intended appeal may well be arguable, to avoid compromising the court that will hear the appeal
The court exercised restraint in assessing arguability so as not to embarrass the court eventually seized of the appeal, merely stating that the intended appeal may well be arguable.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it, including a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of prejudice to the respondent.
- The extension-of-time considerations are not exhaustive or a closed shop; courts may consider additional factors on a case-by-case basis.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to lodge a notice of appeal out of time
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Bungoma Environment and Land Court (ELC) Appeal
- Bungoma ELC Appeal No E026 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for lodging a notice of appeal
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to the applicant
The court directed that costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal rather than being awarded immediately
Costs
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
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.
extension of time was not a right of a party. It was an equitable remedy that was only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
The delay was therefore of about 25 days. In my view this delay, by any stretch of imagination cannot be said or termed as inordinate.
I accept that the reason(s) given for the delay was not foreseeable and therefore excusable. Indeed, it was plausible.
It should always be remembered that whether or not to grant extension of time is always discretionary and should therefore be exercised judicially, on sound reason rather than whimsically, caprice or sympathy.
Having said that much, I would allow the application as prayed. Costs of the application shall however abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: paragraph 1 states the suit was dismissed on 3rd February 2023 and paragraph 7 states the judgment in the intended appeal was delivered on 14th November 2024, but paragraph 2 states the applicant's counsel forwarded a copy of the judgment 'on or about 1st December, 2024' after the applicant wrote on 14th/15th December 2024 - a letter dated after the alleged forwarding date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nalianya v Vincent (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Bungoma ELC Appeal No E026 of 2023 was the decision below). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1448/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.