Kerore v Kerore (Civil Appeal (Application) E691 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1837 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time for a succession appeal because the seven-month delay wasn't explained and leave to appeal was never obtained.
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's delay of approximately seven months (157 days) in filing the notice of appeal and record of appeal is satisfactorily explained and should be excused under rule 4
- 2.Whether the intended appeal has a chance of success, given the requirement of leave to appeal from succession causes under the Law of Succession Act
Key legal issues
#Extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The discretion under rule 4 is unfettered but must be exercised considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent; the applicant's seven-month delay was inordinate and unexplained with sufficient particularity.
The court applied the settled factors from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi and Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd. Although the applicant blamed his former advocates for failing to inform him of the judgment, he did not specify when he made inquiries about delivery of the judgment. The court emphasised that a matter ultimately belongs to the party, and a seven-month delay is inordinate.
Leave requirement for appeals from succession causes
An intended appeal from a High Court succession decision without leave is a non-starter; the lack of leave independently justified dismissal even if the court had been inclined to extend time.
Relying on John Mwita Murimi & 2 others v Mwikabe Chacha Mwita and the decision in Rhoda Wairimu Karanja, the court reiterated that the Law of Succession Act contains no express automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal; a party must seek leave from the High Court or, if refused, from the Court of Appeal. The applicant had not obtained such leave.
Legal principles established
#- Under the Law of Succession Act there is no automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from High Court decisions exercising original jurisdiction; leave of the High Court, or of the Court of Appeal where leave is refused, is required.
- The law sets no minimum or maximum period of delay for extension of time; what matters is whether the delay is satisfactorily explained.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th December 2024 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent/appellate discretion to extend time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time for filing and serving the notice of appeal and the memorandum and record of appeal
The delay of seven months was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; moreover, under the Law of Succession Act there is no automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal without leave, so the intended appeal would be a non-starter
Certification of the application as urgent
The application was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed in its entirety
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
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 delay of seven months is consider able, but the law does not set any minimum or maximum period of delay. What matters is that the delay is satisfactorily explained
under the Law of Succession Act, there is no express automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal; that an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the High Court, exercising original jurisdiction with leave of the High Court or where the application for leave is refused with leave of this Court.
Accordingly, I find that the application dated 13th December 2024 is devoid of merit, and it is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text is fragmented and garbled in places, e.g. paragraph 3 ends mid-sentence ('sub4') and the citation of Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul is broken off ('see Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul inquiries from his former advocates...'), making some passages incomplete.
The case number of the application before the Court is not stated in the judgment text; it is identified only as 'the application dated 13th December 2024'.
The coram lists only Mumbi Ngugi, Judge of Appeal, but the judgment text does not open with an explicit heading such as 'JUDGMENT OF NGUGI, JA'; authorship is inferred from the single-judge signature block. Also, paragraph 9 quotes the holding in John Mwita Murimi without closing the quotation within the visible text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kerore v Kerore (Civil Appeal (Application) E691 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 13th December 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1837/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.