Mulama & 3 others v Viragi (Civil Application E152 of 2025) [2026] KECA 53 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave land dispute appellants more time to file their appeal because delays in getting court documents were not their fault.
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 applicants should be granted extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the reasons given for the delay are sufficient and whether the respondent would be prejudiced
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants' delay in filing the record of appeal was adequately explained
The delay was attributable to the late supply of certified typed copies of the proceedings and judgment, which was beyond the applicants' control, and they moved the Court promptly on receipt of the copies.
The applicants requested typed proceedings after lodging the notice of appeal, but the certified copies were not supplied until October 2025, necessitating the extension application. The Court found the explanation satisfactory because the delay arose from the trial court registry's delay and the applicants acted immediately once the copies were obtained. The Court noted, however, that the applicants failed to serve the bespeaking letter on the respondent, which would have engaged the Rule 84(1) proviso.
Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
The Court held that the land dispute should be litigated to its conclusion and any prejudice to the respondent can be compensated in damages.
The respondent argued that the applicants went to sleep after obtaining stay orders and that the delay was inexcusable. The Court weighed this against the nature of the dispute, which relates to land, and reasoned that land disputes should ideally be litigated to their conclusion. It concluded that any prejudice could be cured by an award of damages, so the extension was granted despite the length of the delay.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules confers an unfettered discretion to extend time, but it must be exercised in obedience to the laid-down principles: reason for delay, length of delay, prejudice to the respondent, whether the intended appeal is likely to succeed, and the interests of justice.
- Under the proviso to Rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the time required to procure typed and certified copies of the proceedings and judgment from the trial court is excluded when computing time for lodging the record of appeal.
- Any prejudice suffered by a respondent from an extension of time in a land dispute may be compensated by an award of damages.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The applicants are granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time
- 3.The record of appeal shall be filed and served within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the ruling
- 4.The respondent shall have the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (ELC), Kakamega
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
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.
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules grants this Court unfettered discretion to grant or not grant an application seeking extension of time.
the proviso of Rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules which excludes the time that it requires to procure the typed and certified copies of the proceedings and judgment from the trial Court when computing time
The application has merit and is hereby allowed. The applicants are hereby granted leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time. They shall do so within twenty-one (21) days of today’s date.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the applicants' 'written submission' in the singular and to a letter bespeaking proceedings, but the notice of appeal and bespeaking letter dates beyond 22nd October 2024 are not precisely stated; the judgment also lacks a case number and neutral citation.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulama & 3 others v Viragi (Civil Application E152 of 2025) [2026] KECA 53 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/53/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.