Gudka v Maranga t/a as the legal representative of Ramesh Sharma - Advocate & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a 21-month filing delay, ending an appeal because the applicant couldn't explain the delay.
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 extension of time to file the record of appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the length of and reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the parties, favour extension of time
Key legal issues
#Length of delay
A delay of about 1 year and 9 months in filing the record of appeal is inordinate
The impugned ruling was delivered on 16th May 2023 and the motion filed on 26th February 2025. The court computed the interval at roughly 1 year and 9 months and held that such a delay is plainly inordinate for purposes of the rule 4 discretion.
Reason for delay
Delays by the High Court registry did not excuse the applicant, who gave no explanation for a further 5-month delay after the certificate of delay
Although the applicant blamed the registry for late issuance of certified proceedings, the certificate of delay showed the proceedings were ready for collection on 5th September 2024, yet the application was not filed until 26th February 2025, with no explanation for that additional 5-month gap.
Arguability of intended appeal
A Single Judge cannot determine arguability of the intended appeal and made no finding on it
The court declined to assess the merits of the intended appeal, holding that sitting as a Single Judge it could not make a determination on arguability, and confined itself to the other rule 4 factors.
Prejudice
The applicant failed to show it would suffer prejudice if extension of time was refused
On the final rule 4 factor, the court was not satisfied that refusal of the motion would cause the applicant any prejudice, completing its assessment that none of the applicable factors favoured extension of time.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding whether 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
- The discretion under rule 4 is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated 26th February 2025 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Milimani Misc Appl No. E762 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 4, 31, 39(b), 41, 43 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010; article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Leave to file the record of appeal out of time against the ruling of 16th May 2023
Delay of about 1 year and 9 months was inordinate and not sufficiently explained; no prejudice to the applicant if refused
Deeming the record of appeal dated 26th February 2025 as duly filed
Follows from dismissal of the extension-of-time application
Costs
Costs to the respondents
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.
the applicant’s motion dated 26th February 2025, is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondents.
the applicant has not 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.
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 1 year and 9 months, which is no doubt inordinate.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gudka v Maranga t/a as the legal representative of Ramesh Sharma - Advocate & another", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application E305 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2307/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.