Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedApplication dated 22nd July, 2025 (arising from intended appeal against Kiambu Civil Suit no. 16 of 2020)

Uniqueloo Limited & another v Ngethe (Civil Application E468 of 2025) [2026] KECA 141 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
30 January 2026
FTF. Tuiyott
836 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a late appeal because the judgment was posted online late, confirming short, explained delays can be excused.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by F. Tuiyott, JA on 30th January 2026, on an application dated 22nd July 2025 under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. The applicants, aggrieved by a judgment of D.O. Chepkwony, J. in Kiambu Civil Suit no. 16 of 2020 delivered on 10th June 2025, failed to lodge a notice of appeal within the fourteen days prescribed by rule 77(2), filing instead on 16th July 2025. They attributed the delay to the judgment only being posted on the judiciary dashboard on 14th July 2025, after which counsel promptly filed the notice and bespoke certified proceedings. The respondent, through submissions only, opposed the application, arguing there is no requirement to await a typed judgment before lodging a notice of appeal, and alleging prejudice given her severe injuries and lost capacity to work. Applying the settled Fakir Mohamed principles, the court found the delay of about 22 days short and explained, with no evidence rebutting the applicants' account. It held that the respondent's apprehension was misplaced because extension of time does not stay execution of the judgment. The application was allowed; the notice of appeal was deemed duly filed and served; the appeal was to be filed and served within forty-five days; and costs were made to abide the outcome of the intended appeal. The ruling does not disturb the decision below.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants should be granted extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of the prescribed period
  2. 2.Whether the notice of appeal filed on 16th July, 2025 should be deemed properly on record

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 22 days in filing the notice of appeal was excusable

Holding

The delay was short and explained: the judgment was only posted on the judiciary dashboard on 14th July, 2025, and counsel filed the notice promptly two days later.

Reasoning

The court found from the coram that the applicants were absent at judgment delivery, and there was no rebuttal evidence contradicting counsel's assertion that the judgment was not available until 14th July 2025. The delay of about 22 days was short, the explanation plausible and excusable, and the respondent would not be prejudiced because extension of time does not stay execution.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted

Holding

The respondent's fear of being locked out of the fruits of her judgment was misplaced because granting extension of time does not stay execution of the judgment.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the respondent's apprehension was unfounded since a grant of extension of time does not amount to a stay; the respondent remains free to execute the judgment. There was no replying affidavit, only submissions, and no evidence rebutting the applicants' explanation of the delay.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under rule 4 is governed by settled factors: length of and reason for delay, chances of the appeal, prejudice to the respondent, effect on public administration, importance of compliance with time limits, and other relevant factors.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 22nd July, 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The notice of appeal lodged on 16th July, 2025 is deemed duly filed and served
  3. 3.The appeal shall be filed and served within forty-five (45) days of the Ruling
  4. 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

FT
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court
Kiambu Civil Suit no. 16 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (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.

Clearly the scale tips in favour of allowing the application of 22nd July, 2025 which I hereby do. The notice of appeal lodged on 16th July, 2025 is hereby deemed as duly filed and served.
p. 2Final orders - extension of time granted
The delay is short and explained. The reason for the delay is plausible and is excusable.
p. 2Excusable delay
Costs shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
p. 2Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment states the judgment below was delivered on two different dates in successive paragraphs.

minor

Contradiction on date of delivery of judgment below: paragraph 2 says 16th June 2025, paragraph 6 says 10th June 2025.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Uniqueloo Limited & another v Ngethe (Civil Application E468 of 2025) [2026] KECA 141 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 22nd July, 2025 (arising from intended appeal against Kiambu Civil Suit no. 16 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/141/eng@2026-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.