Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Oduory aka Dasani v Bonyo (Civil Application E077 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2057 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
1 December 2025
693 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that financial hardship delaying appeal filing can be a valid excuse, giving an applicant more time to appeal a Kshs.20 Million judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu (L. Kimaru, JA) on a notice of motion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of time. The applicant was aggrieved by a decision of the Superior Court rendered on 27th March 2025. Court fees for the intended appeal were assessed at Kshs.99,200, which the applicant could not immediately raise; once funds were secured, he filed the application on 3rd July 2025, a delay of about two months. The respondent opposed, describing the explanation as grossly unmerited, insincere and an afterthought, asserting lack of diligence, and urging dismissal so he could enjoy the fruits of a decree of Kshs.20 Million. The court applied the principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Korir Arap Salat v. IEBC (length of and reasons for delay, prejudice, conduct of parties, public interest, compliance with timelines). Holding that financial difficulty in harsh economic times is not an outlier, that the two-month delay was not inordinate, and that the applicant deserved a chance to ventilate his appeal given the substantial Kshs.20 Million decree, the court allowed the application. It granted fourteen days to file and serve the notice of appeal and forty-five days for the record of appeal, with costs of the application to the respondent. The decision below was not disturbed; the ruling is interlocutory in effect.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to lodge the notice of appeal out of time
  2. 2.Whether the reason given for the delay (inability to raise court fees of Kshs.99,200) is a sufficient and reasonable explanation
  3. 3.Whether the delay of about two months was inordinate
  4. 4.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether inability to raise court fees is a reasonable explanation for delay under Rule 4

Holding

Yes. The court was persuaded that lack of funds to pay assessed court fees explained the delay of about two months, which was not inordinate in the circumstances.

Reasoning

The applicant's delay arose from inability to pay assessed court fees of Kshs.99,200. Once funds were secured, the application was filed promptly. The court accepted that financial hardship is common in harsh economic times and found the two-month delay not inordinate, weighing the substantial decree of Kshs.20 Million against the applicant and the respondent's postponed enjoyment of the judgment.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal should be allowed to proceed despite opposition

Holding

The court was convinced the applicant should be given a chance to ventilate his appeal given the substantial Kshs.20 Million decree he would otherwise bear.

Reasoning

The court balanced the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment against the applicant's right of access to the appellate process, holding that the respondent would merely have to wait a while longer, which was not shown to be significant prejudice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In exercising the Rule 4 discretion on extension of time, the court considers the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, the conduct of the parties, public interest, and the importance of compliance with procedural timelines.
  • Financial difficulty in the current economic climate is not an outlier and can constitute a reasonable explanation for delay in lodging an appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed
  2. 2.Extension of time granted to lodge the notice of appeal out of time; the notice to be filed and served within fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.The record of appeal to be filed and served within forty-five (45) days
  4. 4.The respondent to have the costs of the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Superior Court
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent-extension jurisdiction to enlarge time to lodge an appeal)

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 hereby allowed. The applicant is granted extension of time to lodge the notice of appeal out of time. The said notice shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days.
p. 2Final orders - extension of time granted
Financial dificulty in these harsh economic times is not an outlier.
p. 2Financial hardship as a reason for delay
The length of delay of about two months is not inordinate in the circumstances of this application.
p. 2Assessment of delay

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oduory aka Dasani v Bonyo (Civil Application E077 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2057/eng@2025-12-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.