Oceanview Plaza Limited v C.b. Gor & Gor
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse an 11-month delay in filing an appeal, holding that waiting to confirm a security deposit is not a valid reason.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 11 months in filing the Notice and Record of Appeal was excusable
The delay was inordinate and inexcusable; the excuse of awaiting confirmation of the status of a security deposit of Kshs.5,000,000 was not a valid reason for delay.
The court held there is no legal basis for a litigant to wait for confirmation of a security deposit before filing a Notice of Appeal under Rule 77(2). The applicant filed close to a year after the impugned ruling, demonstrating disinterest in appealing and an intention to delay justice. Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act obligate the Court to ensure expeditious and just adjudication, and the applicant's inaction negated timely dispute resolution.
The applicable principles for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously, guided by settled principles: length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the respondent, conduct of parties, balancing interests, public interest and arguability of the intended appeal.
The court restated the well-settled principles from Muringa Company Limited, Leo Sila Mutiso, Paul Wanjohi Mathenge and the Supreme Court's decision in Salat v IEBC. Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who lays a basis for it, considered on a case-to-case basis.
Legal principles established
#- A party need not confirm the status of a security deposit in the trial court before commencing appeal proceedings; there is no law, principle or rule requiring this before filing a Notice of Appeal.
- In an extension-of-time application, the court considers the length of delay, reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the interests of the party with a favourable decision.
- The wide discretion under Rule 4 must be exercised judiciously, not whimsically or on caprice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Mombasa High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 75 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2) of the Constitution; Rules 4, 41 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 9
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oceanview Plaza Limited v C.b. Gor & Gor", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E098 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/41/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.