Paksons Enterprises Limited v Kipkoech t/a Paksons Agroveterinary Solutions & another (Civil Application E097 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1947 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to forgive a seven-month appeal delay because the company couldn't prove it had properly requested and followed up on court documents.
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 has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time to file and lodge the Record of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately seven months is satisfactorily explained, including whether time taken in obtaining typed proceedings should be excluded under the proviso to Rule 82(1)
Key legal issues
#Whether time taken in obtaining typed proceedings can be excluded under Rule 82 without proof of service and a certificate of delay
No. The proviso to Rule 82(1) requires both a written application for proceedings within 30 days and service on the respondent; without proof of service and production of the certificate of delay, the exclusion of time is unavailable and the 60-day period lapses.
The court noted the proviso to Rule 82(1) imposes two cumulative conditions: a written application for proceedings within 30 days of the decision, and service of that application on the respondent. The applicant alleged a certificate of delay was issued but never annexed one, and there was no evidence the 9th December 2024 letter was served on the 1st Respondent. Both conditions failing, the registry-delay explanation remained unsubstantiated and the statutory 60 days expired without justification.
Whether the applicant discharged the burden of explaining a seven-month delay
No. The delay of approximately seven months was not satisfactorily explained and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in extension-of-time applications.
The Record of Appeal was due by about 15th February 2025 but the application was filed on 29th September 2025, a delay of roughly seven months. The applicant attributed the whole delay to the registry, but without the certificate of delay the allegation was unsubstantiated. The court held that merely stating that proceedings were made available late is insufficient; the applicant must produce the certificate to show what period, if any, should be excluded.
Legal principles established
#- Exclusion of time for typing and certification of proceedings under the proviso to Rule 82(1) requires both a written application for proceedings within 30 days of the decision AND service of that application on the respondent; without proof of service and a certificate of delay, the applicant cannot benefit from the exclusion of time
- The certificate of delay is the proper mechanism for documenting and mitigating registry delays; an applicant must produce it to substantiate claims that delay was caused by the registry
- An applicant for extension of time bears the burden of proof to demonstrate sufficient cause and satisfactorily explain the delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to extend time under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (Rule 82 and extension-of-time jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and lodge the Record of Appeal out of time
The applicant failed to produce a certificate of delay and proof of service of the request for typed proceedings on the 1st Respondent, so the exclusion-of-time provisions of Rule 82 were unavailable and the delay remained unexplained
Costs
Dismissed with no orders to costs - "this application is dismissed with no orders to costs" (each party to bear own 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.
Without proof of service of the application for proceedings on the 1st Respondent, and without production of the certificate of delay, the applicant cannot benefit from the exclusion of time provisions under Rule 82.
The certificate of delay is the proper mechanism through which delays by the registry are mitigated and documented.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed with no orders to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the 1st Respondent or give the appeal/civil appeal number, and states a panel of one JA without a formal coram heading
The judgment recites paragraph 3 as if truncated mid-sentence ('a delay of approximately seven (7) months') with formatting split across pages
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paksons Enterprises Limited v Kipkoech t/a Paksons Agroveterinary Solutions & another (Civil Application E097 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 (Court of Appeal, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1947/eng@2025-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.