Mandera County Government v Sheikh (Civil Application E134 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1654 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal extension request because it cited the wrong procedural rules and offered no evidence explaining the delay.
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 omnibus motion citing Civil Procedure Rules (Order 42 Rule 6(1) and Order 51 Rule 1) instead of the Court of Appeal Rules is competent before the Court of Appeal
- 2.Whether a single motion combining prayers grantable by a single judge and by the full Court is properly before the Court
- 3.Whether the applicant gave sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal to warrant enlargement of time under Rule 4
Key legal issues
#Competence of an omnibus motion before the Court of Appeal
The motion was a candidate for striking out as it sought disparate orders tenable before different set-ups of the Court and cited no Court of Appeal Rules provision
The motion mixed a full-Court prayer under Rule 5(2)(b) (heard under Rule 55(2)(b)) with a single-judge prayer under Rule 4 (heard under Rule 55(1)), and invoked Civil Procedure Rules instead of the Court of Appeal Rules. Such a pleading is procedurally defective even if severance were possible.
Evidentiary basis for extension of time
A bald assertion that delay was caused by the lower court's failure to furnish certified copies, unsupported by sworn averments or documents, cannot justify enlargement of time
The supporting affidavit of Adan Kullow contained no explanation of the delay. Ground 6 merely asserted the lower court's delay without evidence. Absent material, the Court cannot exercise discretion on guesswork, and the plea for discretionary favour must fail.
Legal principles established
#- Applications before the Court of Appeal must invoke the Court of Appeal Rules; Civil Procedure Rules provisions such as Order 42 Rule 6(1) and Order 51 Rule 1 are inapplicable as procedural or jurisdictional hooks before that Court
- A motion combining prayers grantable by a single judge and by the full Court is incompetent and liable to be struck out
- An applicant seeking discretionary relief such as extension of time must place evidentiary material before the Court explaining the delay; bald grounds without sworn averments must fail
Court orders
#- 1.The motion in so far as it seeks enlargement of time is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules - Rules 4, 5(2)(b) and 55(1) and (2)(b)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve the memorandum of appeal
No evidentiary material was placed before the Court explaining the delay; the application was also procedurally defective as an omnibus motion invoking inapplicable Civil Procedure Rules
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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.
A motion that carries prayers grantable at once by a single judge and by the full Court is thus an embarrassing pleading that is at best a mongrel and a mule in procedural law, that ought to be sent packing.
Without material or other explanatory evidence, whether by a statement under oath or some document germane to the matter, the Court would be acting out of whim, caprice or sentiment to grant an application steeped in untenable, nay fatal, deficiency.
A party must satisfy the relevant principles and when no material is availed, such party's pleas for discretionary favour must fail.
I have said enough to show that the motion before me in so far as it seeks enlargement of time is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant is named only in the supporting affidavit; the case title and appeal number do not appear in the extract, and no respondent is identified
The prayer for stay of execution references a judgment 'entered and delivered herein' but the motion itself was filed in the Court of Appeal, indicating cut-and-paste from the court below
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mandera County Government v Sheikh (Civil Application E134 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1654 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1654/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.