Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) v Mariya Group Limited & another (Civil Application E317 of 2025) [2026] KECA 144 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let an appellant serve her notice of appeal late because she explained the honest mistake and nobody opposed the request.
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 unopposed notice of motion seeking enlargement of time to serve the notice of appeal should be allowed
- 2.Whether the applicant's explanation for the late service of the notice of appeal was plausible
- 3.Whether the respondents would be prejudiced by the enlargement of time
Key legal issues
#Enlargement of time for service of a notice of appeal on grounds of inadvertence
The court allowed the enlargement because the failure to serve was unintentional, regretted, and explained by affidavit; the motion was unopposed and no prejudice was shown.
The applicant, Barbara Mwende Munguti, swore an affidavit on 15th May 2025 explaining that the notice of appeal, though filed on time on 13th August 2024, was not served on time due to inadvertence described as unintentional and a normal omission. The court found the explanation plausible, noted the motion was unopposed, and found no demonstration of prejudice to the respondents if enlargement was granted. It therefore allowed service within seven days with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- An unexplained failure to serve a notice of appeal within the prescribed time may be excused where the applicant gives a plausible explanation for the inadvertence, the motion is unopposed, and no prejudice to the respondent is demonstrated.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 15th April 2025 (but should have been dated 15th May 2025) is allowed
- 2.The notice of appeal dated 13th August 2024 shall be served upon the respondents within seven (7) days of the order
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules to enlarge time for service of a notice of appeal (the specific rule is not named in the judgment)
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 notice of appeal dated 13th August 2024 shall be served upon the respondents within seven (7) days of this order. No order as to costs.
I accept the explanation as plausible and as the motion is not opposed, it has not been demonstrated that to grant enlargement would prejudice the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains internally inconsistent dates for the notice of motion, stating both 15th April 2025 and 15th May 2025.
The affidavit supporting the motion is spelled 'afidavit' in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) v Mariya Group Limited & another (Civil Application E317 of 2025) [2026] KECA 144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/144/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.