Okello v Rombo (Civil Application E100 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1764 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because a 450-day delay was unexplained and the appeal looked weak.
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 enlargement of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal from the judgment of the High Court delivered on 17th November 2023
- 2.Whether the delay of 450 days from judgment and 161 days from the grant of leave has been sufficiently explained
- 3.Whether the intended appeal has chances of success
- 4.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained
The delay of 450 days from judgment and 161 days from the grant of leave was not well explained; blame attributed to the pension scheme and its advocates was insufficient, as the applicant should have moved promptly once leave was granted.
The court found that although leave to appeal out of time was granted on 14th August 2024 and a notice of appeal was lodged, no application for extension of time was filed until 27th February 2025. It was not enough to say the delay was due to the Kenyatta University Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme failing to inform the applicant that it had not instructed advocates to lodge an appeal; the applicant ought to have acted with speed after obtaining leave.
Whether the intended appeal had chances of success
On perusal of the impugned judgment and the proposed grounds of appeal, the court entertained serious doubts about the intended appeal's chances of success.
Applying the third Thuita Mwangi factor, the court examined the impugned High Court judgment and the draft grounds of appeal concerning the birth certificates and dependency of the minor beneficiaries, and formed a negative view of the prospects, reinforcing the refusal to enlarge time.
Legal principles established
#- The decision whether to extend time for appealing is discretionary, and 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.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time was found unmeritorious and dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Nairobi Succession Cause No. 257 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to enlarge time for filing an appeal, the respondent invoking section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal from the High Court judgment of 17th November 2023
The delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the intended appeal had no evident chances of success
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
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.
It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
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.
All in all, I find this application unmeritorious and dismiss it.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram certifies the judgment as delivered by D. K. Musinga, President, Judge of Appeal, but the ruling is styled as a single-judge decision; the certificate format (a certified true copy by the Deputy Registrar) does not disclose the full bench, and the applicant's identity is not fully stated in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okello v Rombo (Civil Application E100 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 18th February 2025 (Civil Application, Court of Appeal, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1764/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.