Twiga Chemical Industries Ltd v Commissioner of Customs Services (Civil Appeal (Application) 227 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1854 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Twiga Chemical to file its tax appeal record 16 days late, showing short delays with honest explanations can be excused.
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 an extension of time to lodge the record of appeal which was filed 16 days outside the 60-day period prescribed by rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the record of appeal filed on 27th May 2019 should be deemed properly filed and served
Key legal issues
#Exercise of the Single Judge's discretion under rule 4 to extend time
The discretion is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, applying the established guidelines of length of delay, reason for delay, arguability and prejudice.
The court restated the rule 4 principles from Mwangi v Kenya Airways and Leo Sila Mutiso. It found the 16-day delay not inordinate, the reasons plausible given the uncertainty over whether the statutory timelines in tax appeals referred to filing a notice of appeal or lodging the record, and no prejudice to the respondent who never objected and did not respond to the motion.
Prejudice to the respondent where no opposition is filed
Where the respondent fails to respond to an extension of time application despite service and has expressed readiness to proceed, no prejudice arises.
The respondent was served electronically with the application and hearing notice but filed no response and at no point objected to the timeliness of the appeal. The judge treated this non-response and prior willingness to proceed as confirming that allowing the extension occasioned no prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding an application to extend time under rule 4, 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.Extension of time for lodgment of the record of appeal from 11th May 2019 to 27th May 2019
- 2.The record of appeal dated 24th May 2019 and lodged in the Court of Appeal on 27th May 2019 deemed duly and properly filed and served
- 3.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (Single Judge jurisdiction to extend time)
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.
Accordingly, the applicant's motion dated 24th July 2025, is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed.
The costs of this motion shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
The court has wide and unfettered discretion in deciding whether to extend time or not. However, in exercising its discretion, the court should do so judiciously.
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.
the record of appeal was filed on 27th May 2019, which was 16 days late which delay I do not consider to be inordinate from the circumstances of this case.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronological inconsistency: the High Court decision is styled Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025 yet the notice of appeal is dated 11th March 2019 and the record of appeal was lodged in 2019.
The applicant is described as dissatisfied with 'Commissioner of Custom Services' while the party/respondent is the Commissioner of Customs Services - an apparent typographical variant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Twiga Chemical Industries Ltd v Commissioner of Customs Services (Civil Appeal (Application) 227 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1854 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025 (extension of time motion dated 24th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1854/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.