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 AppealAllowedApplication dated 2nd October 2024 (Court of Appeal, Nakuru)· [2025] KECA 1650 (KLR)

Simon Maritim Towett v Jotham Muiruri Kibaru & 1 other

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 October 2025
644 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a litigant to file his appeal late, ruling that a lawyer's mistakes should not punish a client who acted diligently.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru (M. Warsame, JA) delivered on 9th October 2025 in an application dated 2nd October 2024 by Simon Maritim Towett seeking leave to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time, brought under Rules 4, 44, 49, 84 and 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 and Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. The applicant explained that although his Notice of Appeal and request for typed proceedings were filed promptly on 24th January 2023, the record of appeal was lodged a month late on 22nd December 2023 due to counsel's inadvertence; an earlier omnibus application dated 15th July 2024 had been incompetent under Rule 55 and was withdrawn. The court applied the settled Rule 4 factors - length and reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the dictates of justice - citing Njeri Njoroge v Joseph Maina Gichuhi & another [2018] eKLR. It found the applicant had shown clear intention to prosecute the appeal and held that mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon a diligent litigant. The application was allowed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether mistakes of counsel constitute good cause for extension of time

Holding

Mistakes or inadvertence of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant who has diligently pursued the appeal.

Reasoning

The applicant filed the Notice of Appeal and requested typed proceedings promptly on 24th January 2023, demonstrating diligence. The delay of one month in filing the record of appeal flowed from counsel's inadvertence, including an earlier incompetent application that had to be withdrawn. The court held it would be manifestly unjust to penalise the litigant for his advocate's errors, and granted the extension without costs.

p. 2
02

Whether a one-month delay is inordinate

Holding

A delay of one month, satisfactorily explained, is not inordinate.

Reasoning

The court applied the Rule 4 factors and found the delay was short, explained by counsel's inadvertence, and that no prejudice was alleged since the record had been served on the respondent. Diligence by the litigant weighed in favour of extension.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to extend time under Rule 4 is discretionary and must be exercised judicially on good cause, considering the length and reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the demands of justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to file the record of appeal out of time (application allowed)
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4, Rule 44, Rule 49, Rule 84 and Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 and Section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 9

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Simon Maritim Towett v Jotham Muiruri Kibaru & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 2nd October 2024 (Court of Appeal, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1650/eng@2025-10-09

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