Kenya National Highway Authority v SBI International Holdings (Kenya) (Civil Application E429 of 2025) [2026] KECA 111 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave KENHA 45 more days to appeal, but refused to pause the High Court ruling while the appeal is prepared.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a single judge of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an application under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file the notice of appeal out of time and the notice of appeal already lodged be deemed duly filed and served
- 3.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 4.Whether there should be a stay of execution of the ruling and order of the High Court delivered on 21st March 2025 pending the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a single judge over rule 5(2)(b) applications
A single judge cannot entertain a rule 5(2)(b) application; the court is bereft of jurisdiction when constituted by a single judge
The motion sought a stay pending the intended appeal, which is the preserve of the full Court under rule 5(2)(b). The court relied on Kenya Industrial Estates Ltd v Samuel Sang & another to hold that a single judge, as constituted, has no jurisdiction over such applications, and therefore confined itself to the extension of time relief under rule 4.
Extension of time to file notice of appeal and record of appeal
Extension of time granted despite a 56-day delay and inadequate explanation, because the delay was not inordinate and no prejudice was demonstrated
The court applied the Salat factors: length of and reason for delay, prejudice, undue delay in bringing the application, and public interest. The ruling had been delivered in the applicant's absence although it had participated in the proceedings and had a pending application. While the further delay in bringing the motion was unexplained and would ordinarily be frowned upon, it was not inordinate, and the respondent demonstrated no prejudice. The discretion under rule 4 was accordingly exercised in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge of the Court of Appeal, when constituted as such, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
- The discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules must be exercised judiciously, considering the length of and reason for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, whether the application is brought without undue delay, and in some instances public interest; the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 30th May, 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve a notice of appeal together with a record of appeal within forty-five (45) days of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time); the court held that a single judge lacks jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling and order of Hon. Justice V M Mochache delivered on 21st March 2025 pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The court allowed the motion for extension of time but its final orders do not grant the stay sought; only extension of time was ordered
Costs
Costs of this application shall be in 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.
this court, when constituted by a single judge, is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain an application under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Extension of time is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party, at the discretion of the court.
However, the delay is not inordinate and therefore pardonable. In addition, the respondent has not demonstrated any prejudice it may sufier if time is extended.
The applicant shall file and serve a notice of appeal together with a record of appeal within forty-five (45) days of this ruling. Costs of this application shall be in the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The replying affidavit of the respondent is described as sworn on 5th November, 2025, which post-dates the application of 30th May, 2025 and precedes the ruling date; the date may be a typographical error in the judgment
The judgment states 'the respondent has not told court when it first learnt of the ruling', which on its face appears to refer to the applicant rather than the respondent, an apparent internal confusion in attribution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Highway Authority v SBI International Holdings (Kenya) (Civil Application E429 of 2025) [2026] KECA 111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 30th May, 2025 (Civil Application - extension of time and stay). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/111/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.