Njenga v One Step Family Group (Civil Application E203 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal gave a self-represented litigant 30 more days to file his appeal, ruling an 11-month delay was justified by missed virtual judgment delivery and registry failures.
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 leave to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time, or whether time for filing and serving the same should be extended under Rule 4
- 2.Whether the length of and reason for the delay justify the extension sought
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Exercise of discretion under Rule 4 to extend time
The court has wide and unfettered but judicial discretion under Rule 4; on the facts, a delay of about 11 months was not inordinate and the applicant's reasons (virtual delivery of judgment he could not hear clearly and failure by the registry to supply judgment and proceedings despite requests) were plausible, especially as he was in person.
The court applied the settled Rule 4 principles from Leo Sila Mutiso and Patel v Waweru. It found the ~11-month delay not inordinate, accepted the applicant's explanations as plausible given his litigant-in-person status, invoked Article 159(2)(d) to overlook procedural lapses (including reliance on inapplicable Civil Procedure Rules), found the applicant would be shut out from the seat of justice if refused, and left arguability for the full court.
Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules to applications under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules cited by the applicant (Orders 42, 43, 51) are not applicable to applications of this nature in the Court of Appeal, but the lapse was overlooked under Article 159(2)(d).
The court noted that although the applicant anchored his motion on provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules that have no application to Rule 4 applications in this Court, the applicant was in person and courts are enjoined under Article 159 to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. It therefore overlooked the lapse and decided the motion on its merits.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding whether to extend time for appealing, the court takes into account 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 applicant's motion dated 26th March 2025 is allowed as prayed, granting leave to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time
- 2.The applicant to file and serve the Notice and Record of Appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders shall stand vacated
- 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
- Environment and Land Court, Nairobi (Milimani)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Sections 3, 3A, 75(1)(h), 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Determination of the arguability of the intended appeal
A Single Judge cannot determine whether the appeal is arguable at the interlocutory stage; the court declined to delve into that issue
Costs
The costs of this motion shall abide the outcome of the intended 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.
Taking into totality all the circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the applicant has demonstrated and satisfied the existence of the principles for consideration in the exercise of my unfettered discretion pursuant to Rule 4 of this Court to extend time.
Accordingly, the applicant’s motion dated 26th March 2025, is merited and the same is hereby allowed as prayed.
The applicant shall proceed to file and serve the Notice and Record of Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of this ruling, failure to which these orders shall stand vacated.
It is now settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
there has therefore been a delay of about 11 months, which I do not consider to be inordinate.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the judgment states the impugned judgment was 'dated, signed and delivered on 11th day of April' (without year in the motion) but elsewhere deposes it was delivered on '11th April 2024'; the application was filed 26th March 2025 and the ruling dated 5th December 2025, while the replying affidavit was sworn 20th October 2025 - chronology is internally consistent but the missing year in the motion quote is a drafting gap.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njenga v One Step Family Group (Civil Application E203 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion on notice dated 26th March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2065/eng@2025-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.